Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Graving Dock, Greenock

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to announce a favourable decision on the application by the Inch-green Development Company Limited, for financial assistance in the construction of the proposed graving dock at Greenock.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I am afraid that I cannot yet add anything to my previous replies.

Dr. Mabon: Is the Chancellor aware that in the 15 months since he made his announcement, unemployment in Greenock has remained consistently at about 3,000? In view of the high hopes that were entertained about this project, can he give an undertaking that there will be a favourable announcement before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Amory: My difficulty, as I explained to the hon. Member before, is that I can act only on a recommendation made to me by the Advisory Committee. I understand that the problem, as I mentioned before, is due to the nature of the proposal and the general question of finance.

Purchase Tax

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is the practice in the pottery trade for the supplier to charge Purchase Tax on the cost of packing and postage in addition to the cost of the goods supplied; and on what administrative principle such a method of

charging Purchase Tax on the postage and packing of such goods is based.

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir. This practice is in accordance with the law.

Dr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that this tax is irritating to those who have to pay it out of all proportion to its value? Would he not also agree that it is morally opprobrious to exact a tax on Government revenue and thus impose a double impost?

Mr. Amory: We have to have some common basis for all classes of goods. This principle was settled by Parliament in 1940 and has been followed ever since. If the basis were different and all packing were excluded, the rates might have to be correspondingly higher.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, whereas carpets attract 12½ per cent. Purchase Tax, electrical heating appliances 25 per cent., and transformers no Purchase Tax, Customs and Excise have ruled that an electrically-heated carpet, a new invention, shall pay 25 per cent. Purchase Tax as an electrical appliance, or twice as much as an un-heated carpet; and, as an electric carpet is fundamentally a floor covering, with the electric elements as ancillaries only, whether he will classify an electric carpet as a carpet carrying Purchase Tax at 12½ per cent. only.

Mr. Amory: Purchase Tax is charged at the standard rate of 25 per cent, on all domestic electric heating appliances, and I see no reason to differentiate here.

Mr. Nabarro: A carpet is not a heating appliance. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the same problem arises with electric carpets, electric blankets and electric chairs? Why should the mere fact of electrically heating an article cause Purchase Tax on the article to be doubled in the case of a carpet and a blanket and multiplied by five times in the case of an electric chair, from 5 per cent, to 25 per cent.? Can we not be a little more realistic in these matters?

Mr. Amory: We are being realistic. An electric carpet is a floor covering and is a heating apparatus. Under the present


law, where an article falls into two categories the higher rate of duty has to apply, and in this case it is 25 per cent. I will take another case in which my hon. Friend may be interested, that of electric moustache curlers, which are domestic heating appliances and, as such, attract duty of 25 per cent.

Mr. Nabarro: The Chancellor's reply presupposes that I am wearing a false moustache. My moustache is not subject to Purchase Tax and, therefore, it is not in any way analogous to floor covering.

Mr. Amory: It is not a floor covering. I was referring to it as an article of covering. The point is not the moustache itself but the mechanisms that are required to maintain it in a decent condition.

Free Gifts and Coupon Schemes

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent free gifts and coupon schemes operating over a wide range of food and household commodities are regarded by the Inland Revenue Department as business expenses and subject to Income Tax rebate; and what is the total of allowances made for such schemes and coupon reductions for 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958.

Mr. Amory: I am advised that money spent in this way is admissible as a deduction in computing trading profits for Income Tax purposes if, not being of a capital nature, it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Chancellor aware that this must be a very big item indeed? Surely, it is worth while looking into how much we are paying for something to which most of the population is opposed? Will the Chancellor do something about it? If he cannot as Chancellor, will he, when out with his shopping basket, tell the traders that all of us are opposed to it, including himself, as I am sure he is?

Mr. Amory: My difficulty is that the test that has to be applied is not a test as to the wisdom of the particular expenditure, but whether it is expenditure which has been incurred to earn

profits. If it is expenditure which is incurred for that reason and it fulfils the other qualifications I have mentioned, it has to be accepted as admissible. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion when I next go out with my shopping basket.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is not all such expenditure partly of a capital nature in that it builds up good will, and so on? Is it not wrong that all of it is set against the expenses of making a profit? It is, and must be, in part a capital expenditure.

Mr. Amory: There is a great deal of expenditure which is incurred from the viewpoint of building up good will which would not be strictly of a capital nature. If, however, it were treated as being of a capital nature and it were still regarded as an item fairly incurred in earning profits, there would have to be some system of depreciation allowances on it and, at the end of the day, the result would be much the same.

Industrial Concerns (Loans)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a complete list of all industrial concerns, research associations, and other similar bodies in receipt of State-guaranteed loans.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to pages 66–71 of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom, 1957–58, which show the position on 31st March, 1958. If he requires any more details, perhaps he will put another Question down.

Mr. Swingler: Would not the Chancellor agree to consider collating the information, as it is important that the public should know the multifarious ways private industry is being supported by subsidies, research, and grants from public funds? Would he also consider publishing a White Paper on the extent to which private industry is getting a shot in the arm?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman will find that these are relatively small figures, but if he is not happy about them and thinks they can be summarised in any better way, perhaps he will write to me or put down a further Question. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which are made.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend not observed the extent to which public corporations and nationalised industries are subsidised by taxpayers' money to offset their huge losses?

Mr. Amory: That fact does come to my notice.

Free Trade Area

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have now been made, either by Commonwealth Governments or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, to associate Commonwealth countries with a European Free Trade Area.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): None, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he told the House last month that talks—"consultations" I think he called them—were going on between Commonwealth Governments and the United Kingdom Government in relation to the position of the United Kingdom Government with the Free Trade Area? Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to add to that statement?

Mr. Maudling: We shall continue to keep Commonwealth Governments fully informed on all these matters. No proposal of the kind indicated in the Question has been made by Her Majesty's Government here, or any of the Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the official conversations at Stockholm amongst the seven non-Common Market Governments, including the United Kingdom; and what future action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take towards a Free Trade Market amongst the seven.

Mr. Maudling: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the full communiqué issued on 14th June, to which there is little I can usefully add at this stage. The outcome of the talks in Stockholm was encouraging and Her Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to the report which officials prepared as the basis for decisions by Ministers at a meeting about the middle of July.

Mr. Bellenger: Relating that Answer to the previous Question I put to the

right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether Commonwealth Governments will be brought in in any way possible, or will be affected, by the negotiations which are now going on?

Mr. Maudling: They have, as I say, been kept fully informed of everything that we are doing in this matter.

Mr. Green: What is a "sensitive industry" in the Free Trade Area?

Mr. Maudling: An industry which is sensitive to competition from other countries within the area.

Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, so far as Britain is concerned, the object of entering into any treaty with the Seven will be to facilitate the ultimate creation of a Common Market for the whole of Europe and not to divide Europe politically and economically into opposing camps?

Mr. Maudling: The expression "Common Market" is unfortunate, used in this connection. Certainly I give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—this view is, I know, held by all the other Governments concerned—that one of the main objects is to create a bridge for solution of the problem on a full European basis.

Mr. Woodburn: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Prime Minister visiting General de Gaulle to get some softening-up in France's attitude may not be a more direct method of achieving the same purpose?

Mr. Maudling: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion.

Following in the communiqué:

Another meeting of officials from Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom has been held in Stockholm from 1st to 13th June, 1959.

The officials had been charged by their Governments to discuss the problem of economic cooperation in Europe and to examine, on a non-Committal basis, methods of reopening negotiations with the European Economic Community and the other members of O.E.E.C., in order to remove trade barriers and establish a multilateral association embracing all members of O.E.E.C. In particular, they had been charged with examining the problems involved in creating intimate trading arrangements between the seven countries, what the rules and institutional arrangements of such an association should be,


and whether it could be so devised as to promote negotiations for a wider European settlement. Accordingly, officials have elaborated for the consideration of Ministers a draft plan to create, in conformity with their international obligations, such a trading association. In respect of industrial products the plan deals with the abolition of tariffs and quantitive restrictions, rules to ensure fair competition, and rules for identifying the goods which would move freely between the members. The immediate objective would be a reduction of tariffs by 20 per cent. on 1st July, 1960. The plan provides for a special agreement on agriculture. As a first step towards the elaboration of that agreement, there will be discussions as necessary between interested countries on trade in specific agricultural products of importance to exporting countries. Fish and marine products would be treated as an independent problem separately from agriculture. Proposals for a special agreement to achieve freer and increased trade in these products were made, and these will be given careful consideration. The main scope and function of the institutional arrangements within an association have been delineated. The officials have sought to draw up the plan in such a way as to facilitate subsequent negotiations, within the O.E.E.C. with the European Economic Community and the other members of O.E.E.C, some of whom have particular problems calling for special solutions. The report of officials will be submitted to Governments, It is expected that there will be a meeting of Ministers of the seven countries in Stockholm about the middle of July to consider the report, and take decisions on it.

National Product

Mr. Oram: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual growth of the United Kingdom's gross national product at constant prices since 1951.

Mr. Amory: About 2 per cent. per annum.

Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to United Nations statistics recently published, that figure compares most unfavourably with those of other Western countries, being only about one-third as good as Western Germany, for instance, and half as good as most other countries? Is that not a melancholy result of the Government's economic policy over the years?

Mr. Amory: I cannot feel that it is. Before one accepts the relevance of this comparison one has* to compare the starting points in each case.

Arts Council (Grants)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware

of the grants to Sadlers Wells Opera House being given by the London County Council over an extended period; and whether he will now consider the advisability of making the Government grants to the Arts Council on a three-year basis instead of annually.

Mr. Amory: I welcome the proposed grant to the Sadlers Wells Trust by the London County Council. As to the second part of the Question, when I increased the Arts Council grant for 1958–59 by 11½ per cent. to £1,100,000 I told them that they could count on it being maintained at this figure for the two following years.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that all artistic endeavours have to be planned a long time ahead and that in the Report on the Arts Council and Sadlers Wells, issued recently, attention was directed to the fact that these organisations are unable to go ahead in their future plans because of uncertainty?

Mr. Amory: Yes. I recognise the importance of that point, and I will try to bear it in mind.

Distribution of Industry

Mr. Willey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what applications have been received, and what financial assistance has been made available, under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, in order to reduce unemployment in Sunderland.

Mr. Amory: No firm and eligible application has been received for assistance in Sunderland.

Mr. Willey: While recognising the disappointing nature of the reply, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is enough knowledge about this position among firms who might take advantage of it? Can we not follow a more vigorous policy in trying to persuade industrialists in this matter?

Mr. Amory: That point has been discussed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has raised it before, but we have had some discussion on it recently. We have been taking further action to ensure that the existence of these grants is known. I cannot feel that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying


that this result is disappointing, in the sense that only three preliminary inquiries have been received. One of them was withdrawn. In the other two cases further information is awaited. In so far as any applications have been made, the situation has been dealt with.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many applications for Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee's help have been received by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committees from firms in the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire; and how many of these would assist the depopulation problem of Douglas.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): One firm and eligible application for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, has been received from an undertaking in the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire. I have ho information as to the effect, if any, that an offer of assistance in this case might have on depopulation in another locality.

Mr. Maitland: Can my hon. Friend say how long it takes in processing these applications? Will he do his best to hasten forward that now before the Committee?

Mr. Erroll: It might appear to be misleading to give an average figure, but in general it takes about two to three months, depending on the nature of the application. We are taking such steps as are possible to improve the rate of progress.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the Development Areas Treasury Ad visory Committee is, in principle, willing to consider an application for financial help from any firm proposing to establish itself at Douglas, Douglas West and Douglas Water, in the county of Lanark, provided that this would create local employment capable of easing the situation within the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee area as hitherto defined, irrespective of whether its expected employees would be residents in the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee area.

Mr. Erroll: The Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee can consider applications for assistance under

the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, only if, among other things, the Board of Trade are satisfied that the purpose for which the assistance is required is likely to reduce the rate of unemployment in a place of high and persistent unemployment. I suggest that my hon. Friend should pursue with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether the case he has in mind is likely to meet this statutory requirement.

Mr. Maitland: Will my hon. Friend support me in approaching the Board of Trade on a matter of this sort with a view to obtaining rapid clearance, certainly much quicker than the two or three months which my hon. Friend has mentioned? May I thank my hon. Friend for a very forthcoming reply?

Mr. Erroll: The average of two or three months relates to the whole period. The period which the Board of Trade requires to satisfy itself on unemployment matters is much shorter. I know that the Board of Trade is as anxious as is the Treasury to do its part of the work quickly. If my hon. Friend wishes to approach the Board of Trade again, I think he will be able to do so without my assistance.

Société d'Investissements Mobiliers

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Treasury accepted the bid of the Locana Corporation for the British Government's holding of shares in S.I.M.; and why these shares were not, in accordance with the Government's declared policy, made available to the public by the normal system of a public share issue.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 16th June by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens).

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have seen that Answer, but it does not meet any of the points in my Question. Can the Chancellor explain why it was done, in view of the fact that the Tory Party, the Government and the big vested interests—as witness the fact that the Institute of Directors is supporting the Government—have been clamouring and running a ballyhoo campaign for months to the effect that the ordinary public should


be allowed to take part in investing money in these companies? Why does not the Chancellor give the public a chance to get in on some of these profitable enterprises? Why does he give it all to a private concern which is, in fact, controlled by his own political friends?

Mr. Amory: I have given the shares to no one. My main duty has been to see that the best price has been obtained in the interests of the taxpayers. In deciding the best and most appropriate field I have to use my judgment, but in this matter I had no other obligation than that of ensuring fairness to those who had specifically expressed an interest in the purchase of these shares.

Mr. Jay: What were the Government's reasons for selling the shares at all?

Mr. Amory: We saw no advantage in the Government retaining them.

Rubens' Altarpiece

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what offers have been made to the Treasury by the executors of the Duke of Westminster's estate in respect of acceptance of the Rubens' altarpiece, The Adoration of the Magi, in lieu of death duties under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1956.

Mr. Amory: None, Sir. But the trustees of the Duke of Westminster's Estate have from the outset been aware of the Government's willingness to consider accepting this painting as a preeminent work of art under Section 34 (1) of the 1956 Finance Act.

Mr. Robinson: Whilst regretting that the executors have not thought fit to make a direct approach to the Treasury, may I ask if the Chancellor will give an undertaking that should this picture be sold tomorrow to a foreign buyer he will do his part within all reasonable limits to secure this outstanding masterpiece for the nation? Is he aware that this is probably the last opportunity the National Gallery will have of acquiring any Rubens altarpiece?

Mr. Amory: If this picture were sold at an auction and bought by a foreign buyer it would be for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to consider the matter and, if it thought proper, to make a recommenda-

tion to me. If it did so, as always, I should consider it very carefully.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that we are being rather greedy about this picture? Have we not hundreds of valuable and beautiful pictures in the National Gallery already stored away out of sight? Would it not be for the benefit of artistically underdeveloped countries such as America to have a few beautiful works of art?

Mr. Amory: That is a broad question which perhaps we might develop on some other occasion.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when paying postwar credits to next of kin, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes will provide fuller explanations why arrears of Income Tax are being deducted.

Mr. Amory: Inspectors of Taxes are being instructed to give the fullest possible explanation in all cases where post-war credits are repaid with a deduction for arrears of Income Tax. If the hon. Member will write to me about any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Chancellor aware that widows and other next of kin are very shocked when they suddenly get a remittance slip without any explanation except that arrears of tax dating back to 1942, or some other long period like that, are being deducted? What is he doing to relieve the doubts and anxieties of those who have already had such a slip without any explanation whatever?

Mr. Amory: I am doing everything I can to ensure that a full explanation is given of the deduction, but if the hon. Member will give me any information showing that that has not been done in any case I shall be glad to look into it. As to what I am trying to do, I am trying to minimise the inevitable shock which I am afraid some holders of postwar credits will have when they find that there are some debits to be set against the credits.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a progress report on the payment


of post-war credits under his recent regulation; and whether he will state the number of payments made.

Mr. Amory: Repayment of post-war credits is going well. Between 1st June and 12th June, the latest date for which figures are available, approximately 570,000 payments were made.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the great disappointment of many people who apply for post-war credits, particularly the long-term sick, and find they are not included in the scheme? As it is going so well and the number of widows, I understand, is less than was expected, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in urgent regulations to extend payments to these long-term sick?

Mr. Amory: I am fully aware of the point made by the hon. Member. In order to avoid as far as possible applications which could not be met under the present restrictions, I was at as much pain as I could be to make clear from the start what the three limited categories were. I think it too soon yet to consider an extension of them, but I will bear in mind the points the hon. Member and others have made about other deserving cases.

Mr. Owen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for the repayment of post-war credits have been received from people in the Ashington-Morpeth area of Northumberland; how many were seeking repayment on grounds of permanent incapacity or ill health; and how many have been granted and how many refused repayment to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Amory: I regret that separate statistics are not available of applications for and repayments of post-war credits on hardship grounds.

Mr. Owen: Is the Chancellor not aware that within the mining industry there is a special plea for some consideration for those who are permanently incapacitated? Will he not give consideration to that plea and, if possible, give a little more power to his local administrative officers?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I have no discretion under the law as it stands to meet such applications as the hon.
Member has mentioned, but I have indicated that when the time comes and we can consider an extension to the present limited three hardship categories, I shall give very careful consideration to the kind of case which he has in mind. That is as far as I can go at present.

Budget Expenditure

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what percentage of the total Budget is to be spent on defence, education, health, and old-age pensions, respectively, during this financial year.

Mr. Amory: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Answer:
Ordinary expenditure for the current year was estimated in the Budget at £5,223 million. Of this, £1,521 million, or 29 per cent., was for defence preparations (including Civil Defence). Expenditure on the National Health Services, including welfare foods, was estimated at £560 million, or about 11 per cent. The Government contribution to the cost of the local authority health and education services is included in (and comprises most of) the General Grant which was estimated at £393 million or about 7 per cent. Government expenditure on education (including the universities), outside the General Grant, amounts to £180 million, or about 3½ per cent. Expenditure on non-contributory pensions was estimated at £12 million, or about 0·2 per cent.
These figures take no account of retirement pensions, which are paid from the National Insurance Fund and are not a part of ordinary Budget expenditure. They are expected to cost about £650 million in the current year. The Exchequer contribution to this Fund, which relates to retirement pensions and all other National Insurance benefits, was estimated at £170 million, or 3¾ per cent. of ordinary Budget expenditure.

Iraqi Oil (Earnings)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the effect of the action of the Iraq Government in leaving the sterling area on the capacity of this country to earn sterling currency for oil coming from Iraq.

Mr. Amory: There is no reason why this country's earnings from sales of Iraqi oil, or those of Iraq, should be affected.

Mr. Philips Price: Can the Chancellor say whether we shall have to pay the oil royalties to Iraq for the oil we get from there in any currency other than sterling?

Mr. Amory: I do not know, but it is not really of any great significance because, if we continued paying in sterling, that stering, representing current earnings, would be immediately convertible into any other currency at the request of the holders.

Shipbuilding (Credit Facilities)

Mr. Willey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the provision of credit facilities for the building of new ships in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Amory: I have no evidence that United Kingdom shipbuilding is being hampered by lack of credit facilities.

Mr. Willey: Has the Chancellor seen the developments taking place recently in Western Germany? In view of this, so that our shipyards are not unduly prejudiced by accentuated competition, we must keep an eye on the question of credit facilities.

Mr. Amory: Certainly I shall be glad to consider any evidence of our shipbuilding industry—just as much as I would of any other of our important industries—showing that it is handicapped by lack of credit facilities. Any evidence the hon. Member has I should be glad to see.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend the same approach to dry dock owners, as the Amendment we moved to the Finance Bill was rejected and this does indicate a change of heart on his part which would be very welcome?

Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend will discover that her question is not really related to the Question we are now considering.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that shipowners are not being handicapped through lack of credit facilities but because of the rate of interest on the loans they seek to obtain? Is he aware that Japanese shipbuilders are now making demands on their Government for a reduction in the interest on loans and, if

that should occur, it will react unfavourably on British shipbuilding?

Mr. Amory: It would, but perhaps the Japanese Government, like the United Kingdom Government, do not agree to every suggestion and recommendation made to them.

Income Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what administrative arrangements officers of the Inland Revenue obtain information regarding tax matters from proceedings, findings, judgments and documents arising from proceedings heard in chambers, as in certain divorce proceedings when evidence is given, or allegations made, as to tax defalcations and evasion; if he is satisfied that such arrangements are adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose arrangements for obtaining information in cases of suspected tax evasion.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how a Member of the House of Commons may obtain corroboratory evidence in regard to allegations of fraudulent behaviour in tax matters by company directors or others, as, for example, the scandalous story told by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) last Thursday week in the Finance Bill debates? How can we obtain corroboratory evidence as to the truth or otherwise of such a story and, in the public interest, what action is being taken by the Chancellor to apprehend persons if they are guilty in that sense?

Mr. Amory: As to the first part of the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend, far be it from me to make any recommendations to him about anyone else and about what initiative he should take in any matter. As regards the second part of the question, the Inland Revenue takes all reasonable steps to see that taxpayers in fact pay the tax due from them.

Mr. Pager: With regard to Question No. 25, will the Chancellor bear in mind that a great deal of blackmail has been levied by the devices there referred to


and is something about which one wants to be very careful?

Mr. Amory: I shall take note of what the hon. and learned Member says.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that his refusal to answer tax questions in cases where individual groups, persons or companies are involved is frustrating the work of Parliament; and if he will waive his present practice in order to satisfy the House that appropriate action has been taken in the case of the Midlands' company with a single director who is alleged to have defrauded the revenue, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Amory: I think that the importance of the tax affairs of individual tax payers being kept confidential is generally recognised, and the House would not expect me to make any exception in this instance.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not an act of gross impropriety for private and confidential judicial proceedings heard in chambers to which a barrister who happens also to be an hon. Member of this House has access, to be related by that barrister in this House? Should not the chairman of the Bar Council be asked to consider disgraceful behaviour of that kind?

Mr. Amory: I should not dare comment on my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) appears to be trying to make a personal attack on me, may I ask the Chancellor if he is aware that the cases to which I referred in the debate were not cases in which I was engaged personally but the details of which were supplied to me by a member of the Bar knowing that I intended raising them in the House, with the intention that I should raise them, and that he gave the information in writing?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the following point? It arises from the first three lines of Question No. 26. On 21st April, the Chancellor refused to answer a Question not about individual tax payments but on a

general principle whether expenditure by companies on political campaigns was allowable for Income Tax purposes. Subsequently, the Table has refused to accept Questions on this matter. Is it not frustrating the will of the House if we cannot be told whether such expenditure is chargeable against Income Tax? What course is open to an hon. Member to pursue the matter?

Mr. Speaker: It is a rule of the House that if a Question has been fully answered it cannot be asked again in the same Session. That is no doubt the rule which applies to the hon. Member's Question, although I have no personal knowledge of the Question.

Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that, but surely this is Parliament and this is a general principle of taxation law. We must know what the position is. What can we do about it?

Mr. Speaker: The first answer probably stated the position, did it not?

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made a charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) saying that he had disclosed facts in a case in which he had himself been involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It was a case at which he had himself been present. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said is within the recollection of the House. This was flatly denied by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North. Should not the charge, or any implication that such a charge had been made, be withdrawn by the hon. Member for Kidderminster?

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. When the words are seen in print tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it will clearly be seen that I did not make any imputation at all that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) was himself involved in this case. In fact, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North has divulged to me that the information which formed the subject of this Question was given to him by another barrister, who was involved in the case. In due course I shall ask the chairman of the Bar Council whether that is not highly unprofessional conduct.

Mr. Speaker: All this happened in Committee on the Finance Bill. I do not know what it is all about.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more people pay Income Tax now than in 1951; and how much more is paid now in direct taxation than in 1951.

Mr. Amory: It is estimated that about 2¾ million more people will pay Income Tax in 1959–60 than in 1951–52 and that the yield of Inland Revenue duties will be £494 million greater in 1959–60 than it was in 1951–52.

Mr. Cronin: Do not these astonishing figures indicate clearly that the Income Tax concessions given by the right hon. Gentleman in this Budget and by some of his predecessors are illusory and that more and more tax is being paid under Conservative Governments?

Mr. Amory: On the contrary, they show, first of all, how greatly the standard of living of people in this country has risen in the past six years. If these taxpayers had to pay at the same rates of Income Tax this year as they had to pay in 1951–52, they would be paying an extra £1,160 million. Individuals alone would be paying £1,010 million extra. Furthermore, 2 million more people would be paying Income Tax today.

Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor realise that if they had to pay the rates of tax which they were paying at the end of 1945, they would now be paying over £2,000 million a year more?

Foreign Travel Allowance

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider altering the allowance for foreign travel before the summer holiday season commences.

Mr. Amory: I have no change to propose at present.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, with the position of sterling improving so much, and with its improvement known all over the world, this is a small request to make? Is it not wrong that we should be left in the position that people cannot spend more money than this, if they wish to do so, when they are abroad? Will he bear in mind that people have to plan quite a long way ahead, certainly beyond

December? Can he give any indication whether a change will be made in December?

Mr. Amory: I will continue to bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I have to consider quite a number of factors in this matter. I will not keep the present restrictions any longer than I find absolutely necessary.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Chancellor disclose to us the miracle by which certain people manage to do all the things which they do in the Mediterranean on the £100 allowance?

Mr. Amory: No, I am afraid that I cannot, but if the right hon. Gentleman can I should be very glad to know.

Manufacturing Industry (Fixed Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he will take to increase fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry, in view of the sharp decline in the first quarter of the year shown by the provisional figures recently published by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Amory: The Budget, by restoring the investment allowances and increasing the flow of purchasing power, was designed to create conditions favourable to an increase in fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry. The figures recently published by the Board of Trade are consistent with the expectations I had previously formed, and I do not see any present need to introduce further measures of encouragement to capital expenditure.

Mr. Cronin: Do not the Board of Trade figures at least show that the Chancellor's expansionist policy has come rather too late? Would he not have done better to have accepted the advice given from this side of the House last year?

Mr. Amory: I think that the general indications are that the encouragement of expansion has come at exactly the right moment.

Resident Sterling (Convertibility)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his recent discussions with the West German


Finance Minister, if he will make a statement on the present policy of Her Majesty's Government on convertibility on current account for resident sterling.

Mr. Amory: The Government's policy remains as stated, to continue the removal of restrictions on trade and payments as and when we are able to do so, thus giving the greatest freedom of choice to our own people and contribute to the expansion of world trade.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Chancellor reassure the House that he will not let the siren voices of the Bundesbank cause him to put us in a vulnerable position leading to a large flight of capital?

Mr. Amory: I have always indicated that we shall continue to take these steps as and when the moment arrives at which we can do so safely and with advantage to our own economy and benefit to world trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Public House, Slough

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what grounds he granted permission for Messrs. Courage and Barclay Limited to erect a public house at the corner of Stoke Poges Lane and Granville Avenue, Slough, contrary to the decision of the local planning authority.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Govern-men (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend decided to give planning permission because, after considering the report of his inspector who conducted a public local inquiry, he could find no reason for thinking that a public house on this site would do any harm. I have sent to the hon. Member a copy of the letter issued to the parties which gives the reasons for this decision in greater detail.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst appreciating that it is the normal practice for the decision of the Minister after a public inquiry to be final, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this case there are very exceptional circumstances, that the Slough Council had allocated this

land for housing, that the construction of houses had actually begun and that a majority of the residents in the area has petitioned against the decision?

Mr. Bevins: This is a relatively small site on which not more than five houses could have been constructed. The inspector's conclusion was that a public house was acceptable in this predominantly residential area. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that seemingly a majority of the local residents was hostile to this proposal. That was taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend, but it is not a decisive consideration.

Flats, Bristol

Mr. Coldrick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he returned a tender for the building of a block of flats in Bristol to the city council after the council had accepted it; and what was the result.

Mr. Bevins: The tender in question was negotiated with the contractor, based upon an earlier tender submitted in October, 1957. Since the negotiated price appeared to be high, the Council was advised to see whether a better price could be obtained by re-advertising. My right hon. Friend has not yet received a fresh tender for approval.

Mr. Coldrick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of referring the tender back it has cost the Bristol City Council at least £622 more than it otherwise would if the Minister had not interfered? Does he not think that it is a gross waste on the part of his Department to duplicate the work of responsible local officials in drafting these plans and entering into the tender?

Mr. Bevins: The Department insists on re-advertisement only where the negotiated price appears to it to be excessive. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the lowest tender is several hundred £s above the negotiated price, but I ask him to bear in mind that this is an exceptional case. In nine cases out of ten the prices tendered to local authorities following re-advertisement are lower than negotiated prices.

Theatres (Grants)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the grants being given to Sadlers Wells Opera House by the London County Council; and whether he will bring this action to the attention of all local authorities, reminding them of their powers under Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, and urging them to give similar encouragment and support to the theatres in their areas.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is aware of the London County Council's decision. It is for each local authority to decide for itself whether and how it will use its powers to contribute to the provision of entertainment, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be appropriate for him to offer advice.

Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this fine and generous gesture by the London County Council should be brought to the attention of other local authorities, particularly in those areas where the local theatres are in risk of closing and where the local authorities might subsequently take steps to reopen the theatres at great expense, whereas by the application of Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, they might save their local theatres at very little expense?

Mr. Bevins: Local authorities in general are perfectly well aware of what their powers are. The Report which has just been made to the Gulbenkian Foundation by a group including Lord Bridges will emphasise to local authorities what their powers are, but that Report indicated very clearly that it would be wrong for Whitehall and Westminster to give direction to local authorities on matters of this kind.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great tendency for all moneys to be spent on the arts to be concentrated in London and one or two larger cities? Many valuable little local repertory theatres and other dramatic and cultural undertakings seem to be left in the cold and are in danger of dwindling away. Will he use what authority and influence his Department has to see whether, be it local authorities or the Arts Council, these small undertakings are not overlooked?

Mr. Bevins: If any local authority, large or small, wants to undertake assistance of this sort, my right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to look at loan applications with very great sympathy.

Coastal Waters (Pollution)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress is being made to rid United Kingdom coastal waters of sewage pollution.

Mr. Bevins: Many schemes have been carried out by coastal authorities since 1945 for the construction of new or extended sewage outfalls or for the provision of treatment works. Other schemes are in preparation and each year brings new ones forward.

Mr. Oliver: How many schemes are in progress? Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether more coastal towns are finding it unnecessary now to discharge sewage into the sea?

Mr. Bevins: The House had an Adjournment debate on this subject last night. I then said that over 100 coastal authorities have carried out or are proposing to carry out about 160 outfall or sewage treatment schemes. This will cost altogether about £20 million. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are making very real progress.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman giving further consideration to the special problems of the Tyne and the coastal areas there after the Adjournment debate last night?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. The problems of the Tyne are always in the mind of my right hon. Friend. We shall not forget it.

Peterlee Corporation (Appointments)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from the Easington Rural District Council about the proposed new appointments to the Peterlee Corporation.

Mr. Bevins: The Council has asked my right hon. Friend to consider affording it direct representation on the Development Corporation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that, when the Minister consulted the Easing-ton Council and it suggested that someone resident in the locality might be appointed to the Peterlee Corporation, he decided to go outside the area and he has actually appointed two persons from outside the area? What is the point of consultation if the right hon. Gentleman rejects the advice?

Mr. Bevins: All that has happened so far is that my right hon. Friend has indicated to the Easington Rural District Council that he has it in mind to appoint two individuals. The Easington Rural District Council has made representations in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. Those representations will be considered. Having said that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the considerations which normally influence Ministers in this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: How is it possible for the Minister to obtain the co-operation of the Council, which is essential in the area, unless he takes notice of its representations? Will the Parliamentary Secretary suggest to his right hon. Friend that he might consider that there are people in the area whose intelligence is at least as high as the intelligence of those outside?

Mr. Bevins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not doubt the intelligence of members of a particular rural district council. My right hon. Friend's desire in the case of the new town development corporations is to have the right people as members, whether they be members of local authorities, industrialists or whatever they might be.

Wednesfield, Staffordshire

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will be able to confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order. 1958, for the High Street Development, No. 1, Wednesfield, Staffordshire.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend expects to give his decision on this Order very soon.

Miss Lee: I am very grateful for the reply that it will be "very soon," but I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty there is in these

towns with very large overspill populations. Will he please consider it very soon?

Mr. Bevins: We certainly hope to get the decision out within the next month.

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the population of Wednesfield, Stafford shire, at the present time and two years ago; whether he is satisfied that the development of schools, shops, and other essential amenities has kept pace with the growth of population.

Mr. Bevins: According to the Registrar-General's mid-year estimates, the population of Wednesfield was 28,280 in 1958 and 23,700 in 1956. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the urban district council and the county council are taking steps to ensure that the provision of schools, shops and other amenities keeps pace with the growth in population.

Miss Lee: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that compliment to the local authorities, although that was not the point I was raising. Will he make quite sure that the efforts of the local authorities are supplemented by those of the Whitehall men and let us not have the delays that we have so far had?

Mr. Bevins: We shall certainly bear that in mind.

Beaches, Rivers and Canals (Life-saving Facilities)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the large number of people who have been drowned at an early stage of the present holiday season; and if he will consider the introduction of arrangements which will necessitate local authorities providing more efficient life-saving facilities on all beaches, rivers, and canals coming within their areas or under their jurisdiction.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has seen with great regret reports in the Press of a number of fatal accidents by drowning, but he does not think that there is a case for amending the existing powers of local authorities to provide life-saving


appliances. He is sure that they are well aware of their responsibilities in this matter.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is not my hon. Friend aware that all too often the facilities seem to consist of little more than a lifebelt on the promenade and a man in a rowing-boat? Could we not save a great many lives if we had a more positive policy, taking an example, perhaps, from the magnificent arrangements there are on the Australian beaches?

Mr. Bevins: This is a matter for the local authorities. Under the Public Health Acts, they may provide life-saving appliances wherever they think fit in bathing areas, but if my hon. Friend has any instances where he thinks that those powers are not being adequately used, my right hon. Friend will gladly take up the matter.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In view of the accidents that occur, would not the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend call the attention of the authorities to the need for life-saving arrangements at this sort of place?

Mr. Bevins: I am perfectly willing to consider that.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Cornwall there are a number of life-saving associations operating in exactly the same way as in Australia?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Peterlee

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from residents in Haswell, South Hetton, Thornley and Wheatley Hill on the subject of housing needs and their objection to the proposal that they should find accommodation in Peterlee.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has received representations from residents in Haswell and South Hetton that more slum replacement houses should be built in these villages, rather than in Peterlee. In reply they have been informed that a town map for the rural district is being prepared, that members of the public

will have an opportunity to make representations about the proposals therein; and that therefore my right hon. Friend cannot prejudge the matter by expressing views until that has been done.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this problem is largely attributable to the fact that the Minister has refused to provide a sufficiently large allocation of housing so as to enable the Easington Council to proceed with house building? Is that not really the trouble?

Mr. Bevins: No. The trouble is that Easington, as a local authority, has asked for a larger allocation of slum clearance replacement houses. On the other hand, Peterlee has objected on the ground that, if that larger allocation is granted, it will place the future of Peterlee in jeopardy. That is the view of Peterlee. My right hon. Friend has asked the rural district to reconsider its attitude. The whole question will come forward when the town map is submitted to my right hon. Friend.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the provisions that nuclear weapons shall not be used in case of war without the authority of the Prime Minister, apply to tactical or kilo-ton anti-tank weapons and to nuclear anti-aircraft defensive weapons by land and sea.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The arrangements for the control of the use of nuclear weapons apply to all types of such weapons.

Mr. Hale: I am very grateful for that Answer, but would the Prime Minister be good enough to go just one stage further and say that that decision will not be altered without informing the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister mean by that reply that the Governments concerned, as well as the generals, must give their authority before these nuclear weapons can be used on the Continent of Europe?

The Prime Minister: The question was whether there is any distinction between different types of nuclear weapons and my Answer was that the same arrangements would apply; that is, a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government would be required in relation to all kinds of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is obvious that the anti-tank weapons referred to in my hon. Friend's Question are more likely to be used on the Continent of Europe. That being so, would not the Prime Minister make it plain what the arrangements are in relation to those weapons?

The Prime Minister: With regard to nuclear weapons of any kind—whether operating under independent British command or under Allied command—a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government would be required?

RADIOACTIVITY

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a permanent research committee into the genetic hazards involved in the use of nuclear force and thermo-nuclear explosions.

The Prime Minister: The genetic and, for that matter, the somatic hazards of all forms of ionizing radiation are already kept under constant review by the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Hale: But is it not a fact that the Medical Research Council has no power to initiate inquiries on its own but power merely to receive reports? In view of the extreme importance of the matter, would it not be as well to have it under constant review by a qualified body which is able to demand, and compel, the supply of essential information?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps, a little under-estimated the amount of work which the Council does. It is supporting much research on the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in a number of its own research units as well as in other centres throughout the country.

Mr. Bevan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disquiet resulting from the effects of man-made radioactivity, he will now request the

Medical Research Council to undertake a thorough investigation into the incidence of bone cancer and blood leukaemia in people living at different altitudes, and make the report available to Parliament.

The Prime Minister: In principle, such an investigation as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would be a useful contribution towards establishing the relationship, if any, between the variations in radiation from the natural environment and the incidence of bone cancer and leukaemia; and experts are carrying on this type of study in other parts of the world. However, I am advised that bone cancer and leukaemia are so rare, and the range of different altitudes at which people live in the United Kingdom is so small, that it could not be effectively carried out in this country.

Mr. Bevan: Now that we have the assurance that the idea of the threshold has no scientific validity, would it not be useful if we obtained information about the extent to which altitude affects bone cancer and leukaemia? If the Prime Minister thinks that altitude varies so little in Great Britain as to be not really important, will he furnish the House with the results of investigations elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: I was merely pointing out that, if one wants to make a scientific investigation of the varying effects of living at different heights, this country, which is, on the whole, a flat country, without great differences in the heights at which people live, will not provide the best places for this kind of research. Obviously, in places like Denver, where people live at a great altitude—the whole city is—a much more useful contribution can be made. I will certainly consider whether we can make available the results of these studies of altitude which have been made in places where the research is more easily conducted.

SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT AND GUIDED MISSILES

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the proposals and actual commitments involving the use of highly-skilled manpower and other national resources in the development and manufacture of a supersonic bomber,


supersonic transport aircraft, atomic-powered aircraft, atomic-powered submarines, guided weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear and thermo-nuclear devices, and instruments and rockets for cosmic space research, he will appoint an appropriate committee to decide priorities in the widest and best economic and defence interests of the nation.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Machinery already exists for this purpose.

Mr. Beswick: Whilst I am aware of the committee that sits under the chairmanship of Lord Mills and considers one section only of these activities, is there not a need for one body responsible for the deployment of our technical and scientific manpower over the whole field? Is not the Prime Minister aware that many responsible and informed people in this country feel that we are in danger of spreading our resources much too thinly; and is it not better to undertake rather fewer projects and do those superlatively well?

The Prime Minister: Those are all arguments that come up when these things have to be settled, as anybody who has taken part in administration knows, but I think that the broad machinery must be that the Cabinet must be the final arbiter; for the appropriate committees of Ministers and the appropriate Ministers to put forward their projects, after which the final decision has to be made as to what is the most effective use of our resources from time to time.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Healey: asked the Pime Minister whether, in view of recent developments at the Foreign Ministers' Conference, he will now propose the early convocation of a Summit Conference.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the difficulties encountered at the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Geneva, he will now initiate consultations with other Heads of Governments about the summoning of a Summit Conference.

The Prime Minister: It is my hope that the Foreign Ministers' Conference which is to be resumed on 13th July in Geneva will lead to a meeting of Heads of Government.

Mr. Healey: Would not the Prime Minister agree that careful study of Mr. Gromyko's speech on Friday, as well as that of Mr. Khrushchev on the previous day, shows that the Western and Communist positions on the question of Europe are not so far apart as was at first assumed; and that the recent developments at the Nuclear Test Plan Conference in Geneva alone fully justify the earliest possible meeting of the Heads of Government?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly in agreement with the view that the hon. Gentleman has expressed—that it would be a mistake to underrate the degree of success that has already taken place at the Foreign Ministers' Conference. The Foreign Ministers have not reached agreement, but undoubtedly the positions are more clarified and, in certain respects, are nearer together. For that reason, I hope that after a short adjournment the Foreign Ministers will be able to make still further progress.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement of his hopes of a Summit Conference, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary will be making an up-to-date statement on the Conference?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there are a number of Questions addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend for tomorrow, and he thinks that it may be convenient to summarise them in a statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. Swingler: Whatever the developments at the Foreign Ministers' Conference, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will take the initiative in asking for a Summit Conference, which is more rather than less necessary if progress is not made by the Foreign Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, but perhaps he will allow me to do my best to handle the matter in the way that I hope may arrive at a good result.

RACIAL RELATIONS (AFRICA)

Miss Herbison: asked the Prime Minister if, in the interests of improving race relations, he will consider visiting


United Kingdom territories in Africa during the Summer Recess.

The Prime Minister: I should certainly welcome an early prospect of visiting Territories in Africa.

Miss Herbison: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, but is he aware that the banning of the Rev. Tom Colvin as a prohibited immigrant has considerably deepened the fears of the Africans, and if the right hon. Gentleman does manage to visit Africa during the Summer Recess will he use his good offices to try to bring about a different policy there?

The Prime Minister: That supplementary question arises directly out of my reply, but I know that my colleagues' visits are very valuable. My right hon. and noble Friend the Commonwealth Secretary has recently made a visit, and we are, I am sure, all hopeful of creating an atmosphere and spirit in which this very difficult problem that faces us all in Africa may be resolved.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman first approach Sir Roy Welensky to make quite certain that he himself is not placed in the unenviable position of Mr. Colvin if he chooses to visit Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am bound to say that his interventions have not always been in quite the spirit of those of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): In addition to the business already announced for Friday, we shall ask the House to consider as the last Order the Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill, which has come from another place, as well as the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is rather short notice, but I understand that the Bill is relatively non-controversial, so I expect that it will be all right.

NYASALAND (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Mr. Speaker: The House will recollect that, last Wednesday, I had to rule out of order a proposed Question by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the Rev. Tom Colvin because the regulation of immigration into the territory is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
In the course of subsequent points of order, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said:
Without questioning your Ruling, Sir, may I ask whether the word 'immigrant' applies to people living in an area who happen to go out of the country to visit this country? An immigrant suggests to me somebody going to a country. This is preventing a man from returning to his home and place of work. Has the Colonial Secretary no responsibility for ensuring his rights?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 441.]
I replied that the Question had not been submitted to me on that ground, and that there was a point in what the right hon. Gentleman had said which I should like to consider. I therefore made inquiries to find out whether or not this gentleman is, in fact, a citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am told that he is not. Therefore, as the Rev. Tom Colvin is not a citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, he comes within the category of immigrant and, as immigration is a Federal subject, I must adhere to my Ruling that there is no responsibility of Ministers here for that subject nor for making representations upon any particular case.
I notice, however, that it has not escaped hon. Members that an action which is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government may have repercussions on matters for which the United Kingdom Government are responsible, and that Questions on the latter are in order.

Mr. Woodburn: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what you have said. May I call your attention to the further result of our discussions? Sir Roy Welensky now proposes to make statements, presumably, about Mr. Colvin and his character, which may be in order, but is it not desirable, in the interests of proper relations between our countries and


these responsibilities, that Sir Roy Welensky should not employ anything in the nature of character assassination to justify such action?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter with which I can deal. Sir Roy Welensky is not a Member of this House. Therefore, I have no control over him.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We are very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration that you have given to this matter. Is the effect of what you said at the end of your remarks about repercussions upon this country that the Question which my hon. Friend proposed to ask was really in order?

Mr. Speaker: That I do not know. I ask the House not to ask me to give advance Rulings on Questions which I have not seen. It would save the time of the House and, I think, assist hon. Members better, if, when they have framed their Question, they would consult the Clerks, who will give them any necessary assistance to bring the Question into order. I do not want to commit myself to general statements on these difficult topics.

Mr. S. Silverman: Arising out of the first part of what you said to us, Mr. Speaker, about this gentleman not being a citizen of Nyasaland, was not my right hon. Friend's point not that he was a citizen but that he was domiciled there, ordinarily resident there, having his home there? This is rather different from being a citizen. Did the Ruling which you have given take that point into account?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it certainly did. Taking the analogy of our own immigration laws, an alien such as a Frenchman, or, let us say, a German, might be resident in this country and domiciled here without achieving our nationality. He might then go on a visit to his own country. It would be quite within our powers to deny him re-entry to this country if we thought that that was in the public interest.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. This is very important. May I submit this for your consideration? There are Federal citizens in the Federation, but there are also two Protectorates. Does that not alter the matter? There are protected persons as well as citizens, and protected persons come under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of that. I think that the unit to be considered here is the Federation, which has these powers over immigration.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Joseph Bede Symonds, esquire, for Whitehaven.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Cotton Industry Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY BILL

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(DEMOLITION OF VACANT PREMISES.)

Where as a consequence of the elimination of excess capacity under a reorganisation scheme premises become vacant and remain vacant for a period exceeding six months the appropriate local authority may, if it considers the premises obsolete for industrial use and has so informed the Board of Trade, issue a notice requiring the owners to demolish the premises and to clear the site.—[Mr. Boardman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I regard this new Clause as of equal importance with any Clause already embodied in the Bill. While the Bill itself is concerned with the controlled contraction of the cotton industry, which, incidentally, means that it is a Bill which will cause some people to lose their jobs, the new Clause is designed to take some practical steps to encourage new industries to enter the areas affected.
Some of the old mill properties have been taken over by other industries. Some have been taken over as warp-houses, which, from a local employment point of view, does not help very much. I think that it is only fair to say that any employer who is contemplating introducing a new industry is entitled to say that he will not put modern, efficient plant into obsolete buildings which have outlived their period of usefulness.
Many such buildings are standing in Lancashire today and have stood there for many years as ghosts of a cotton industry that was. Anyone who has seen these old dilapidated mills will agree that to allow them to remain standing is a major disincentive to any prospective employer in the area, to say nothing about what the local people who have to live with the mills think about them.
Even if we could persuade some employers to introduce new industries to take the place of the old mills. I suggest that it is ludicrous that the Government should be prepared to pour out £30 million from public funds to try to

encourage the cotton industry to attain a reasonable level of efficiency and then expect employers to put modern machinery into mills which, in many cases, are 100 to 150 years old.
There is a special problem in some of the cotton towns; and I am thinking now of the towns which have been dependent upon coal as well as upon cotton. Many of these towns, I think it is true to say, have not a solitary vacant site which would carry the weight of a modern factory building. That is so in many areas, but there is one place which is safe from subsidence, and that is the site on which an old cotton mill stands, because its ground has been protected. It strikes me as very odd that we should continue to allow these old factory buildings idly to occupy the only sound sites in the area.
It also seems to me to be sheer economic madness to allow industry to sprawl into agricultural areas while these factories stand in their idleness surrounded by people whose greatest desire is to work on the sites, in spite of having to pay bus fares to get to them, and so on. These derelict factories have become hideous monuments to a bygone age.
The proposed Clause is permissive. It would allow local authorities to use their discretion, and they would use their own knowledge of local industrial conditions. It seems to me that if we are intent on getting new industry into these areas, a move which has become more acutely necessary as a result of the Bill, this is the sane and sensible way to do it.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I beg to second the Motion.
This is a very important proposal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), I think that it is about time that something was done to clear up this mess. Last night the House discussed the problem of water and sewage, which, in its own context, is very similar to the problem that we are now discussing. Our forebears, with their dynamism and ability to create, did a very good job of work. The men who built the mills were pioneers in their trade, and the men who built the waterways were pioneers in local government. They made it possible for industry to develop in the areas which they served.
Years ago, the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was very forward-looking in its provision of reservoirs. These things have brought problems in their train, and, while the members of the local authority were forward-looking, and able to do a job of work well in their day and generation, often what was left behind was a legacy to the following generation to keep up to date in the handling of the commodity and circumstances created by the previous generation. It was the same with sewage, and now it is the same with cotton mills.
These old mills are strewn from end to end of our constituencies. Usually, they are sited on the canals or on the waterways. Most of the mills that I am talking about are in my constituency. I make no apology for putting forward a constituency illustration, but it is not a constituency matter pure and simple. In Ashton-under-Lyne, for two miles—at least, one mile and five-sixths, because I have measured it—cotton mills stretch one after the other. At present, two of the mills in that length are working on cotton. Of all the mills strewn along the waterway, only three have been built since the Crimean War.
I should have thought that that would be rather startling to hon. Members, but it does not seem to have had much effect on them, because they are looking at me in a placid and unconcerned manner. They are probably thinking, "We are only batting out time anyway, so let him keep on talking". I must, however, draw the attention of the Board of Trade to something that needs to be done urgently. It is time that private industry and industry generally cleaned up their own dirt. The habits of private industry in the past, with its sewage, mine slag heaps and now its mills, have much in common with the undisciplined and untrained dog on the pavement.
I said that these mills often were built before the Crimean War. They were certainly built before the railways, and that is why so many of them have their own private wharves, which are magnificent examples of enterprise. They are five, six and seven storeys high. I have compiled a record of the factories on the two-mile length to which I have referred.
Early yesterday morning I went along with a photographer to take views of this length from the east. As the photographer was sweating along with his great big box, he said, "Well, this is the first time in my life that I have had a two-mile stroll through uselessness." I said, "I will tell them that in the House tomorrow, because you have summed it up in a few words."
I wish to hand over these photographs afterwards, but, first, I should like to comment on them one by one. The first one shows a modern mill, about fifty years old, which is now in the hands of the Ministry of Supply. The next photograph is of an area which has on it a disused ruin. In the distance we can see a mill with a smoking chimney. That is one of two mills which are working on this length of one and five-sixths of a mile. But, under the provisions of the Bill, even that mill with the chimney smoking could be one of the casualties without Ashton-under-Lyne having any say in the matter.
We go on and now we come to a picture of the dereliction which goes with old mills—old houses, and the old chapel, long since disused. We notice that a couple of lads are having a bit of a go at one of the windows. Then we come to the site of a factory which was burned down last week. If I were ever tempted to incite someone to commit arson, or if I wanted to commit arson, I would do it in this kind of area and to these types of buildings. Alongside is a railway station which is disused because there is nobody to bring into the factories which are now derelict.
Then we have a photograph of a really "beautiful" vista across the river, the old junk of forgotten years coming up to buildings which were erected before the Crimean War, at a time when the building of chimneys was not within the technical competence of British builders; when it was necessary to bring builders from Germany to build our chimneys. These chimneys, which were built by Germans before we knew how to do it, are octagonal; they are graceful things, monuments. But the things on which their shadows fall are the sort of mills which used to be called very foul names by those who had to work in them. Then, suddenly there is a splash of modern—something from the 1794s.
Then we come to a length of the canal which, had Billy Graham seen it before he went to Hyde Park, would have probably caused him to say something even stronger. We can see over the canal in this picture and there is the employment exchange, a new building, built at the time when there was much unemployment. Surely it should have been clear to the people of those days that the future of industry did not reside in that kind of building and that they ought to have had wit enough to get out. But seeing it emerging over the canal, and recalling all the human problems that went with it, I was reminded of old Joe, who, before the war, was in the queue for the dole. He said to the man in front of him, "Eh, let me come in front of thee, I have got a pain in my stomach." And the man in front said, "Nay, I have nowt in mine."
That sardonic remark is similar to the kind of pictures of old Lancashire which Lowry paints. The President of the Board of Trade is as fond of those pictures as I am. It is not because the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the scene, because he does full well. It is because he appreciates with me the beauty of the sardonic side of that scene.
So we go on, and come to the second of the two mills in operation. It was built in this century and it, too, may become a casualty. So we have two miles of the canal covering an area varying in depth from 100 yards to 400 yards. As we approach the end we notice that there is a modern electric railway line adjoining the canal. The canal is now the home of dead dogs and cats. It is filling itself in with its own growth, rank and stinking. It is part of the general scene which the townspeople want to leave at their back door and forget. It is part of the scene which is forgotten by most of the people in the town and rightly so, too, because do not forget that this is a fine town. Elsewhere, it has built itself out of that kind of scene, but what development could take place if the old buildings were bulldozed away along the whole of that length of the canal.
Then we come to the latest culture, the Oxford Mills, which were built in the middle of the last century. The owner was a Member of this House. He

used to have his workpeople inside doors at 9 o'clock at night, and if they wanted to have a bit of a "gallivant" they used to go past his house in stockinged feet. They used to take their clogs off. He made himself a monument before he died, and inscribed it. He gave orders to the Staffordshire potters to make him pots, with his name on them and extolling his virtues, which he could deliver all round Ashton-under-Lyne. But it did not prevent the generation after the Chartists from burning his house down. It did not prevent the people in Ashton-under-Lyne from remembering him in another way.
4.0 p.m.
A statue was put up and I must say that the ribald in Ashton-under-Lyne still paraphrase what is on the statue.

Hon. Members: Tell us what they say.

Mr. Rhodes: They say:
Here is Henry Mason,
Who left"—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman described the statement, which he has not yet fully quoted, as one used by the ribald. It would seem to me unlikely to be Parliamentary in its terms.

Mr. Rhodes: I respect your judgment, Mr. Speaker. You were able to sense what was coming. But I will nod when I come to the offending word:
Here is Henry Mason,
Who left men in the lurch,
With his face towards the public house
And his … towards the church.
That is the sort of memory in the minds of people in this district who know these mills and who are desperately anxious about the situation. The question which keeps recurring is, "What is the future for our boys and girls in view of the uncertainty that there is at the moment about the cotton industry?" What are we to do about the buildings which were used for the manufacture and spinning of cotton? I do not know whether this new Clause falls into that particular niche or not, but what I do know is that we cannot afford to neglect this great modern problem of clearing up, whether it is sewage, slag heaps, or the dross and the dirt left for us by previous generations. If we in our day can clear up only a tithe of it, we shall have justified our existence.

Mr. Tom Brown: I rise to support this new Clause, because I believe that it is of paramount importance. If we are to close cotton mills wholesale within the next few years, as is suggested, there is likely to be even more dereliction in Lancashire than there is today.
Many months ago—and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pardon me for mentioning this—I discussed this question with him in the corridor, long before it was anticipated that the cotton industry would contract to the degree which it has done and will do. The suggestion which I put to the right hon. Gentleman was that a survey should be made in the industrial North-West of the number of derelict buildings which ought to be cleared because they were of no further use and a danger.
Anyone paying a visit to the industrial North-West of Lancashire cannot help but be impressed by the dereliction that is manifest there. We see it on every hand. Down the pages of history Lancashire has been renowned for its industrial wealth. Today, in addition to cotton mills which have gone out of commission, a large number of coal mines have also gone out of commission, and the two things coupled together have intensified the dereliction.
If one goes through the industrial North-West from Manchester to Preston, right and left, north and south, we see a mass of dereliction which is a legacy left to us by the industrialists of days gone by. We have burning slag heaps, disused quarries, derelict pitheads, disused railway stations, and now we are to have disused factories. In the interests of all concerned, not only of the travellers who travel through Lancashire but of the people who live in Lancashire, this environment ought to be changed. It can only be changed by compulsion, and that compulsion can only be applied by legislation. We are asking the President of the Board of Trade not to demolish factories willy nilly, but, where they have been vacant for a period of six months, to release the site for some other purpose.
Let us examine the matter from another point of view. In many of our mining towns, particularly in Leigh, Westhoughton, Ince and Wigan, we have no sites upon which to build houses. Imagine a

local authority trying to meet the housing situation when there is not a square yard of land upon which to build houses, and when, despite that fact, sites are occupied by mills which ought to be cleared away so that the land may be used to build houses.
I have been making a calculation which may be of interest to the House. I find that we in Lancashire, apart from cotton and all the other things that go with industry, have been giving this country deep-mined coal for 413 years. Let hon. Members try to imagine the dereliction that we now have in Lancashire after having given deep-mined coal to this country for so long a period.
This matter was mentioned when you, Mr. Speaker, occupied a very responsible Cabinet position. You were Minister of Town and Country Planning, I believe, or something of that kind. I forget exactly what position you then occupied, Sir, but you did it very well. [Laughter.] I say with all seriousness that this matter has been constantly ventilated in this assembly from time to time, and yet, despite all that we have tried to do, and all that we are anxious to do, we cannot get the Government to lend an ear to our plea.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has had this "bee in his bonnet" for a long time. So have I, and so would any other hon. Member who goes through the industrial North-West. Why should we leave these derelict factories standing there, half pulled down, with broken windows, and a danger to the children who live in the neighbourhood? If they have remained unoccupied or untenanted for a period of six months, and there does not appear to be any potential use for them industrially, the owners of these mills ought to be compelled by law to relieve the district of these unsightly ruins.
Furthermore, there is a feeling, particularly in the North-West, that no attempt is being made by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Government Departments which are responsible to show that they are concerned about the environment of the people. After all, that is a very important consideration in their lives. I was always taught that nice, and congenial environments assisted people to rise to a high moral standard, but if we


allow all this dereliction and devastation to be constantly facing the people morning, noon and night, how can we expect them to be able to enjoy beauty? They have no chance at all and this new Clause seeks to give them that chance. It seeks to clear up the mess—the legacy that has been handed down to us by the industrialists of the past.
The President of the Board of Trade is not responsible. Responsibility for this continued dereliction rests with the Government as a whole. They should sere to it that in the industrial areas, when factories have finished producing and there is no further use for these milk, they should be removed, as well as the pitheads and the slag heaps. It has been said that this would cost too much money, and I have heard it said that when the mills have finished producing the owners have no money with which to do it. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade has made an examination of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956. It is laid down there that when houses are vacated, they should be pulled down. Why should not factories be levelled to the ground when there is no further use for them, after being vacant for a period of six months as the new Clause states?
I strongly support the acceptance of the new Clause, because I live in the midst of the dereliction, which I see every day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. One thing which pains me is to see added to all this devastation the new devastation caused by opencast mining, of which there is so much. I dare not develop that matter now, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to this point, and I appeal to hon. Members on the benches opposite to listen to it, too. In one town in my area, Ashton-in-Makerfield, in the last ten years approximately 2½ million tons of coal have been extracted and there is also the dereliction caused by the mining industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member at all, but really the coal question is not affected by this Bill. I allowed the previous references the hon. Member made because he was painting the picture of ruined buildings, and so on, but we must not go into the coal question while considering the Bill.

Mr. Brown: I know, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away by the picture which I have constantly before my eyes, and which I cannot forget.
I strongly support the acceptance of this new Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) have said, let us decide today that we shall not tolerate this any longer. If there is no further use for the cotton mills, as there was no further use for the pits, then they ought to be cleared away and their sites made available for some other useful purposes, such as building houses for the people living in those areas.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes on this problem which, of course, affects rather differently different Lancashire towns. Perhaps it does not affect Oldham in the sense it does the constituencies of some other hon. Members, but the situation in Oldham has changed, and changed much for the worse, in the last few months.
Our problem a few months ago was that we had no places where we could put a new industry. One of our things which worried us was those factories of which, according to my hon. Friend's factual definition of a new factory, that it is one which is fifty years old, Oldham has a fairly high percentage. A very high percentage were being bought out as useless for further production and let as stores. They were being bought up by speculators working together for people with no direct Lancashire interests, and the space which might have been used for developing our industry was going.
Of course, there is a second serious point, that cotton mills were designed to be cotton mills and that many of them are quite unsuitable for adaptation for some sort of industry, especially heavy industry, and the Bill will not support the coming of new industry.
Unhappily, the Conservative Government have done for industry in Oldham in 1959 what they did for us in housing in 1923. They cured our housing problem in 1923 by driving 20,000 of the population away to seek work in the South. The reduction of the population and in the standards of living had the effect that two or three families would live in one


house, and that left us with empty houses. There is an hon. Member opposite smiling about this. He can get the population figure for Oldham and find that it is still lower than it was in 1923 in spite of the efforts which have been made recently.
This was a very real tragedy for Lancashire. People who have not lived in Lancashire may think that this is a very romantic description, but this was history written in terms of human lives, blood and heartache and waste of endeavour of the decent powers of humanity.
Now we are in a situation in which we have empty factories. We should do well to remember the condition of textile machinery. Platt Bros. Ltd. came to Oldham also before the Crimea.

Mr. Rhodes: They did not start there.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I do not mind where they started. The founder became Mayor of Oldham in 1884. When I became Member they occupied three huge premises in Oldham. Today, they occupy one, and that one is now on a good deal of short time, and there is the greatest anxiety about the diminution in the length of the order book.
I should be out of order if I were to try to develop this, and I would not for a moment wish to get out of order, but, really, the Tory Government are not considering this problem as it should be considered. Here we have an unemployment Bill to reduce employment, and if we are having ancillary provisions further to reduce it in this industry I really cannot see why the Government cannot consider providing for other industries to come in. I have tried to make them understand that before. I tried in Committee on the Bill.
In Oldham now we have a dreadful town and country planning problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was perfectly right when he recited the facts. We ought to get an examination of them. Here was a town which was built in the country. It must have been intensely difficult before the Industrial Revolution. It was built, as I have said before, on seven hills, and from the main street one can still look out and see a vista

of hills to the north and across the Yorkshire border.
There came a time when it was literally true that there was nowhere to build without pulling down old buildings and clearing the sites. After 1945 we had to wait for our post-war buildings until we got the necessary sanctions to extend our boundaries and take in land adjoining, and then we had to start remaking all the surfaces of the land before we could build the houses; and now that employment is diminishing so much there is not nearly the same demand for houses that there was. Everyone of these things is collectively cumulative in its effect.
There is one small point which, in the very able and moving speeches which have been made already, has not been mentioned. One of the tragedies about a derelict mill is that nearly always there is also left the millpond, and every two or three years a child falls into a millpond and is drowned. Time after time the corporation has taken up the problem with Ministers. First, it was told that nobody had any power to deal with them. Then it was told the powers existed if anyone could find them or knew them, or knew what to make of them. There is a wanton wastage of life, because a millpond is a trap. Naturally, it attracts children, as water does.
Time after time these disasters occur, when people have made fortunes, or lost them, and have left the area and have left their mills to rot. Of course, when they rot sufficiently they can be pulled down under the somewhat elaborate provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. I want provision for these mills, for which there is no use in the industry, to be taken over by the corporation if necessary. I should like to go further and see some reasonable attraction provided for industry to come in.
The situation is serious. No one has sought to over-paint this picture today. None of us concerned with the cotton towns has been anxious to paint the picture any worse than it is, because we know that this can have its own unhappy effect. There is a slight stimulation of demand. Recently, there has been a slight expansion of demand, in the terms of Tory Ministers, made by people who can afford to buy, but no one concerned with industry in Lancashire looks with any confidence to the immediate future.
It would be idle to say that there is very much sign of any real improvement or any permanent improvement in the situation, and it certainly is true that part-time employment is rather tending to cloud the position and perhaps helping to spread the burden over a larger section of the community. I do not want to develop that at all, but I just wanted to speak generally to the question of these mills.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this question, even if he feels that he cannot accept the new Clause, whose wording, I think, is perhaps open to some criticism because, first, it requires that a factory should be empty for six months and, secondly, does not deal with a factory being used for anti-social purposes. I am not sure that it would effect of itself what my hon. Friends would wish to do. If the Minister would undertake to look into this position from the point of view of Lancashire towns and his own powers under development of industry legislation and discuss this quite narrow issue—

Mr. Boardman: Nobody wants the factories to be empty for six months. All we say is that if they are still empty at the end of six months the new Clause should apply.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate that. I did not say to the contrary. I said that the new Clause deals with mills of such poor condition as to be virtually unlettable, otherwise one could get round the new Clause by a short let.
I have listened to the arguments with genuine emotion and admiration, but I think that the wording of the Clause leaves so many loopholes that it might not carry out the precise intention that is contemplated. The whole question of the provision, preservation or the replacement of buildings so as to give opportunities for industries to come into an area is a matter still to be dealt with and on which the Minister, if he so wished, could give more assistance.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The case made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has. I am sure, won the sympathy of the whole House.

I join with them in disliking very much the evidence of decay and death which is to be seen wherever there is an ancient building which has no artistic or historic merit and is useless for industry. I think that such buildings should be pulled down. I am with the hon. Members who spoke so movingly to the new Clause. They have mostly been describing existing derelict buildings, but the new Clause deals with a few mills only, which will become derelict as a result of reorganisation schemes in the industry.
If I lived in Ashton-under-Lyne I could well understand that, although the people are employed and there is new industry about, the site of this line of old mills, of which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has been kind enough to provide us with pictures, would depress the spirit of the whole neighbourhood. It is quite right that the House should pay attention to this and that we should do all we can to get rid of scars of that kind. But I do not think that the new Clause is the answer.
It would not be just to put an obligation to demolish on the owners, as the new Clause provides. To do that would be to single out, first, the cotton industry from other industries for a new type of obligation and then, inside the cotton industry, to single out some of the mill-owners whose mills will be closed, and not others. It would be manifestly unfair. It may be said that we ought to offer more money in compensation to those who are likely to have to demolish their buildings than to those who are not likely to have to demolish them after closure, but that cannot be done under the Bill. It would be outside the Money Resolution.

Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has now touched upon something which is very closely related to the law as it affects the domestic housing problem. If I own an old house which was certified by the local authority as unfit for human habitation, and I was told to pull it down and I did not do so within the statutory period, the council would do it for me and send me the bill for demolition. I do not see that it is consistent to say that it would be unfair to place a similar imposition on owners of derelict cotton mills.

Sir D. Eccles: All the mills that go out of production as a result of the Bill


will receive compensation on the same scale. If we adopted the new Clause, some owners, the lucky ones, would no doubt be able to sell or let the mill for a new use, and so would receive more cash. The unlucky ones would see their compensation diminished by the cost of demolishing their mills under the new Clause. That would be manifestly unfair.
I should like to call the attention of the House, therefore, to the powers which already exist for getting rid of unsightly and useless old industrial buildings. Under existing legislation, local authorities have a general power to acquire premises and sites for redevelopment, by agreement or otherwise. In general, they cannot do this except for redevelopment purposes, nor can they compel an owner to carry out demolition and clearance at his own expense. Nevertheless, nearly 500 local authorities possess wider powers that can be used for acquiring and demolishing derelict premises.
Some of the cotton towns, among them Accrington, Bolton, Bury, Nelson, Colne, Oldham, and Rochdale have these powers. The hon. Member for Oldham, West should be interested to know that in Section 25 of the Oldham Corporation Act, 1925, there are powers whereby the corporation can acquire old mills and pull them down, and it can acquire the site even though it does not immediately have a use for it. If the local authority wants the site for housing, the powers, as hon. Members know, are there. I think that that is known as the "Birmingham Clause," which is in many local authority Bills.
If the borough does not act, there are general powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, Section 26 of which provides that the local planning authority may, by order, require the demolition of buildings in the interest of proper planning in its area. That power is wide enough to cover the demolition of derelict mills which have become eyesores. It is not often used because the procedure is rather cumbersome and an inquiry has to be held, but the powers exist and Lancashire County Council could have used them if it had wished and could have taken down the buildings

of which we have been shown photographs.
We at the Board of Trade have certain powers to acquire a site for industrial use in a development area, but these powers are confined to derelict land or buildings and the courts hold that "derelict" means "ownerless" or "abandoned" and we have found that that definition is restrictive.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that if the building were abandoned the Board of Trade would have power under Section 5 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to grant the necessary finance to a local authority to do the job if the right hon. Gentleman scheduled the area.

Sir D. Eccles: I agree, and I have been thinking that if the owner wrote a letter and said that he had no further use for an old mill, that would constitute an effective proof that it was abandoned, in which case we could act. It is not within the sphere of the Board of Trade that we should pull down buildings for purely amenity reasons. We must stand by the criterion that demolition would improve the attraction of that area for new industry, but that is a fairly wide concept and I would say to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that it is not a bad idea to consider a survey after the Bill has become law and when we know the extent of the buildings to be closed as a result of the reorganisation schemes.
Perhaps I should end by saying that Lancashire has stood up to this problem very well. It would not be true to say that in spite of the immense contraction of the cotton industry, which we have discussed so often in the House, there is a persistent level of unemployment in the north-western region, higher than that of the country as a whole. That is very much to the credit of Lancashire and to those who have come into the area. When thinking of the difficulty of getting sites—and I am impressed by the fact that subsidence makes things so difficult—I believe that there probably will be found a good case for taking action in regard to some of the derelict buildings. If the House will leave that with us, we will, as time goes on, and we get a clear picture of the position, do our best to make some suggestions and to use some of those powers.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: We have had an informative and broadly sympathetic reply from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this problem. There are only two general points I shall make before we come to the powers we have been discussing.
The first is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that it is only in areas liable to subsidence that it is difficult to find new sites. In hilly areas, such as parts of the Darwen constituency and the Rossendale Valley, it is extremely difficult to get a sufficient area of level ground which is not subject to flooding. Perhaps I should point out that, although we have an industrial estate in the Rossendale Valley, there are only a few areas which are as favoured as we are.
The second thing I want to say—we cannot say it too often—is that the old mill buildings are not ideal for other industrial uses. Practically every other industry which has come into East Lancashire is now housed in old cotton mills, which are far from suitable for the purpose for which they are now used. If they are weaving sheds, the height of the shed is not great. If they are spinning mills, there are a large number of storeys, and in many industries much greater efficiency could be achieved if it were possible to carry on the whole process on one level, instead of in the up and down way in which it has to be done at present. If we can get away from the old buildings in the new phase into which we are moving in Lancashire, and if we can concentrate upon the provision of new ones, it will be generally welcomed throughout the county.
I thank the President of the Board of Trade for the suggestion that when the Bill has become an Act he might survey the whole area affected, and see the size of the problem and the number of factories which ought to be demolished. We shall do everything we can to strengthen him in that intention.
On the subject of the powers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am not quite happy about what he said. It is true that there are local authority Acts, which are well known to my hon.

Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, but I am not sure whether some of the smaller local authorities can be expected to incur the quite substantial expenditure which would be involved, especially bearing in mind the fact that it is not their fault that the cotton mills are to be closed, but that they will be closed by virtue of a decision taken in this House. It would be much more equitable to proceed under national legislation rather than under local Acts of that kind.
The President of the Board of Trade also referred to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. It seems to me that there is some slight advantage in the former procedure, because, if factories were demolished under it, the expenditure could be charged to the owner of the land, who, presumably, would already have been indemnified by the payment of compensation. However, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in that respect.
I would have thought that the solution to this problem would be for the Government to proceed under the Distribution of Industry Act and to consider making the whole of the textile area affected a development area, so that Government help could be made available, so that no additional burden would be placed upon the local authorities, and so that no injustice would be done to those people who go out of the industry leaving their mills behind them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a gleam of hope today that he will consider extending the Development Area to cover those areas which will be adversely affected by this Bill, and to which very little help at present appears to be available.

Sir D. Eccles: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, first, may I point out that more mills would close if we did not have the Bill than if we had it. Therefore, it should be remembered that the grant of all this money, and the working out of the reorganisation schemes, will result in a stronger and healthier industry than we would have otherwise.
On the second point, North-East Lancashire is already scheduled, and I would like to see the scale of the problem


outside the Development Area before making up my mind whether anything more should be done.

Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman come and look at it?

Sir D. Eccles: Sir D. Eccles indicated assent.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before we dispose of this Motion, may I express my own personal view? I hope that nobody in the House will underestimate the seriousness of the problem that we are postulating as Lancashire Members today. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I would prefer on such an occasion, when we have taken the opportunity open to us to raise the matter on the Report stage of the Bill, to register our feelings by voting on the Motion. I will give one or two reasons, without detaining the House for more than a few minutes, to show why I think that we should do this.
As I said in Committee on the Bill. I have taken some interest in the work of the Lancashire Industrial Development Association. In the course of that work we try constantly to attract industrialists with the usual blandishments to establish new industries in the areas that are being deprived of the cotton industry and of the dying coal industry. What do we find? We find that we are not only up against an economic problem, but Also an aesthetic problem.
We find that people who come from London and other parts of the South, who are used to living in rather more congenial places than some of the old, battered industrial areas, bring their wives with them for the weekend trip. Of course, ladies are "choosey" about these matters and there is a great deal of petticoat influence in industry as well as in politics, as we all know. Mrs. Smith, who comes with her husband, looks round East Lancashire or Ashton-under-Lyne, has dinner at the Midland Hotel, in Manchester, after wandering around, and she says over coffee to her husband, "You don't think you are taking me up there, do you?" It has been suggested to me that she says what "My Fair Lady" said, but I am not quite sure what words she used.
Nevertheless, I am making a serious plea today to the President of the Board of Trade and to Her Majesty's Govern-

ment to take serious notice of what we are saying. We need to provide a more congenial background not only for our own neighbours and fellow citizens in Lancashire by clearing away the old dross of the Industrial Revolution, but also to make it more presentable so that we shall have a better chance of attracting new industries into the areas which need them.
This is not a flight of fancy. We have listened today to a number of interesting speeches about the situation, which has been expressed so well by our old friend L. S. Lowry, R.A., in the pictures with which the President of the Board of Trade is so familiar. I do, however, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it just is not sufficient for him to come to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, in the kind and courteous way that he always comes to that Box and in a way which is most ingratiating to the House, because he has not promised us anything except that he will have another look at the problem.
People have been looking at this scene for generations. People who have forward-looking ideas about the development of Lancashire and making it a more liveable place have always been flogging away at this with very little support from any Government. I am not making a party point on this. Hon. Members opposite—I am not speaking of them individually, but of some of those who are often in the Chamber when we are not debating cotton—are apt to "go for" various Ministers of the Crown concerning agriculture. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am in order in mentioning this, because it is strictly germane to the point that I am making. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will listen to what I have to say before you stop me.
One of the primary responsibilities of this House is to have regard to the proper use of our native land. The proper use of land is basic to a sound and healthy society, whether for agricultural or industrial purposes. We have set up under the Ministry of Agriculture a massive structure of county committees which are empowered to do all sorts of things to farmers who are found guilty of bad husbandry and of wasting good land. Each time we apply these powers some Tory hon. Members get up and "play Hallelujah" about it.
This is a serious question. I say quite modestly, and, I hope, temperately, that we ought to have similar Government powers, couched in terms so as not to inflict hardship on anyone, to prevent wastage of land and allowing it to go derelict by the presence of derelict industrial premises. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find time to visit Ashton-under-Lyne when he gets a few weeks to spare during the Summer Recess and it might be a good idea if the Prime Minister gave him leave of absence to go to Bagdad. I know that it is a long way off and that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be asking, "What has Bagdad to do with Lancashire?" I see that you are looking at me with a baleful eye. I went to Bagdad not long ago and I saw the most fantastic things going on there. [Laughter.] I am not going to quote any ribald phrases, or to deal with the sort of things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) spoke a few moments ago.
The only point I am making when I say "fantastic things" is that one sees people there using highly-developed mechanical excavators, bulldozers and juggernauts of all kinds—the fantastic things used for opencast mining in Lancashire and for other purposes—bulldozing half the town away. Derelict buildings are being swept away into oblivion. One sees thousands of Arabs running round with treasures of scraps of old iron. Yet we in this country, in 1959, with all the advantages of Western civilisation, are pleading, like cripples at a cross, with Her Majesty's Government to do something that the Arabs have done after about five years of modern civilisation. That is perhaps a little exaggerated.
With very great respect and in all seriousness, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, when he was making his most interesting speech and giving such a graphic picture, boggled for a moment about quoting something. He appeared to be about to quote, if I have the gist of his argument right, the famous reference of our great English poet, Blake, to the "dark Satanic mills", which represented all that was worst in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, and the exploitation, which we now

cannot understand in terms of modern industrial relationships, of people who were oppressed and downtrodden.
In the modern generation, when we talk about the new outlook and the atomic age, we are becoming tired of complaining that we are left with all the dross, the pitheads and broken down factories—the "dark Satanic mills"—which are now very often rat-ridden holes, and which ought to be pulled down, if only from the point of view of public health.
4.45 p.m.
Perhaps I have spoken a little more strongly than I usually speak, but I have spoken from the heart on this, and that is not done often enough in the House. I am tired of all the flim-flam, the soft arguments, and about being so nice to each other—although I hope that I am always nice to everybody. I believe, as a Lancashire Member, in saying forcefully what ought to be said in the face of the situation in which we have a declining industry. We are complaining that the dross of the past must be swept away if we are to have proper use of the land and if we are to have a place attractive enough to bring in new industries to take the place of those which have disappeared.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am sorry to detain the House a little longer before it comes to a decision on this matter. This afternoon a very important discussion has developed out of this new Clause on a very important theme, and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on introducing it and giving us an opportunity of considering it.
I felt, when I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the speeches made by other hon. Members, that undoubtedly we were dealing with a national scandal in certain parts of our country, but I thought that they underestimated the extent to which powers exist to deal with this kind of thing. That point, of course, was, very naturally, taken up by the President of the Board of Trade and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). These powers are at present in existence and it is for consideration how far particular powers proposed


by the Clause are needed in the situation which exists.
The President of the Board of Trade has gone a considerable way in undertaking that he will be prepared, when the Bill becomes law, to consider making a survey and investigation of the way in which matters are developing, with a view to seeing whether an opportunity will arise of putting into effect, rather more widely than has been done before, existing powers of his Department as to the treatment of derelict land.
I should like him to consider this afternoon whether he would go a little further and make a statement with reference to the more general power to which he referred and which exists under the Town and Country Planning Act. There has been one particular disappointment in the operation of town and country planning legislation. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) will agree with me on this, which is not a party matter, but I should not be surprised to discover that the same opinion is held upon the other side of the House when I say that one of the disappointments of post-war town and country planning legislation is the small extent to which use has been made of Section 26.
Before the discussion is concluded I should like from the President of the Board of Trade an expression, which I do not think he will have much difficulty in giving, of his readiness, after the Bill has become law and when the survey

which is adumbrated has taken place, not merely that he will consider a further application of the powers which his own Department possesses under the existing law, but, also, that he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the demands which exist for effective action to be taken by local planning authorities under Section 26 of the 1947 Act.

The Bill, creating, as it does, a derelict area on particular premises, calls by its whole nature and content for the kind of action which Section 26 of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act contemplated. It would be appreciated by many hon. Members, I believe, on both sides of the House, if the right hon. Gentleman not only said what he has already said about considering the application of the powers which his Department possesses under the Distribution of Industry Act, but also went further and said that he will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the demands which exist for setting into motion the application of powers under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act for treatment of the kind of problem which the Bill will create.

Sir D. Eccles: I shall be glad to do what the hon. and learned Member has asked.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 247.

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[4.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Ainsley, J. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Albu, A. H.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Carmichael, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Chapman, W. D.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fletcher, Eric


Balfour, A.
Cliffe, Michael
Forman, J. C.


Benson, Sir George
Clunie, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Beswick, Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Caitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cronin, J. D.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood Anthony


Boardman, H.
Deer, G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bowles, F. G.
Diamond, John
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Boyd, T. C.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hale, Leslie


Brockway, A. F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hamilton, W. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edelman, M.
Hannan, W,


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hayman, F. H.




Healey, Denis
Messer, Sir F.
Snow, J. W.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sparks, J. A.


Hilton, A. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mort, D. L.
Steele, T.


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holmes, Horace
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stonehouse, John


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Oliver, G. H.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hoy, J. H.
Orbach, M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, W. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.
Symonds, J. B.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, T. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, N.
Thornton, E.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Popplewell, E.
Viant, S. P.


Kenyon, C.
Prentice, R. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Weitzman, D.


King, Dr. H. M.
Probert, A. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lawson, G. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, H. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lewis, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lipton, Marcus
Reeves, J.
Willey, Frederick


Logan, D. G.
Reid, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


MacColl, J. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


McCann, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


McInnes, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woof, R. E.


Mahon, Simon
Short, E. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Zilliacus, K.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



Mason, Roy
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.
Mr. John Taylor and


Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Mr. J. T. Price.


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Forrest, G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Foster, John


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (stone)


Arbuthnot, John
Cooke, Robert
Freeth, Denzil


Armstrong, C. W,
Cooper, A. E.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, Lady


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Corfield, F. V.
Glover D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Godber, J. B.


Barber, Anthony
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Goodhart, Philip


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Barter, John
Cunningham, Knox
Gower, H. R.


Batsford, Brian
Currie, G. B. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Dance, J. C. G.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
de Ferrantl, Basil
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Gurden, Harold


Bidgood, J. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bingham, R. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Duncan, Sir James
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Duthie, Sir William
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.


Braine, B. R.
Elliott,R.W.(Newcastle upon Tyne.N.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Brewis, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bryan, P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Fell, A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Campbell, Sir David
Finlay, Graeme
Holt, A. F.


Carr, Robert
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, R. P.







Horobin, Sir Ian
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Roper, Sir Harold


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Howard, John (Test)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Marshall, Douglas
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Mathew, R.
Sharpies, R. C.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Mawby, R. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Storey, S.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Neave, Airey
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Nicholls, Harmer
Studholme, Sir Henry


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nicholson, Sir Codfrey (Farnham)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Kaberry, D.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Nugent, Richard
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Teeling, W.


Kimball, M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kirk, P. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Leavey, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Leburn, W. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdate)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Partridge, E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peel, W. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vane, W. M. F.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wall, Patrick


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pott, H. P.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Rawlinson, Peter
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Redmayne, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Renton, D. L. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robertson, Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Hughes-Young and


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Clause 1.—(SCHEMES IN CONNECTION WITH ELIMINATION OF EXCESS CAPACITY.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "as" to "to" in line 13 and to insert:
it is in the opinion of the Cotton Board desirable in the circumstances of the finishing section".
This Amendment is simply an attempt to introduce rather more precision of language into the Bill and also to set rather more precise limits to the amount of money which can be spent in compensation for the elimination of excess capacity. As the President of the Board of Trade originally introduced the Bill to the House, compensation was to be related to the number of machines of any description which were to be eliminated. In Committee, he proposed to insert the additional words which now appear in the Bill to the effect that
except in so far as the circumstances of the section make it desirable in the opinion of the Cotton Board to relate the compensation to other factors,

It was pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that those additional words gave very wide latitude to the Cotton Board to base compensation not merely on factors other than the number of machines, but on any factor whatever of any kind which the Board chose to consider relevant. When we asked the right hon. Gentleman why he wished to go as wide as that, he replied that there were special difficulties of definition in the case of the finishing section of the industry. He intended these words simply to be used in the case of the finishing section and not to be extended further. He professed himself unable to devise any more precise words which would get him over the difficulty he had in mind without going quite so wide as the words he has inserted in the Bill.

The point of this Amendment is that it seemed to us that if that were the purpose there could be no objection to limiting those wider words to the finishing section. If the President still holds to


the argument he advanced in Committee, I do not see why he should not be willing to accept this Amendment, unless he has thought of some better solution and better definition which would circumscribe the powers even more precisely.

Sir D. Eccles: I first mention a very small fault in the Amendment, not that it is serious. In the subsection to which the Amendment relates the word "section" refers to a section as defined in a reorganisation scheme. As was explained in the White Paper, there are likely to be four sections in the finishing trade and, therefore, the last word of the Amendment should be "sections", in the plural.
Even so, I should not recommend the House to accept the Amendment. As the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, we argued the case in Committee and I then said that reorganisation schemes and compensation in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections would be related to the number of machines as the yardstick, as was done in the Bill in the beginning. That remains the case. Those schemes are going forward and it will be the machine—the loom or spindle—to which the compensation will be related. I have looked at the case of the finishing section again and it is still uncertain precisely how the compensation will be measured, but it will not be on a scale more generous than the compensation in the other sections.
It now appears that it is just possible that one or two firms which had not been thought about before may come forward to the Cotton Board and ask to be included under the Bill. Such a firm or firms would not readily fit into any of the schemes we have already defined. I do not know whether this will be the case, but if it were, I am advised by the Cotton Board that it is not at all certain by exactly what means their compensation, if they are entitled to any, could be measured.
For that reason, I hope that the right hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because I think we can trust the Cotton Board. It understands very clearly the doubts which were raised in Committee. There is no intention at all of introducing elements for measuring compensation that would enable compensation to be "blown up," if I may

use that phrase, in respect of particular sections.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman has now thought again about this matter and that, perhaps, is a little disturbing. First, he wanted to relate compensation to the number of machines throughout the industry and he told us in Committee that in the finishing section difficulties might arise. Now he has told us that these difficulties might arise in firms which may or may not be within the finishing section.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the Bill is framed in this way. Nevertheless, we have no serious doubts that the Cotton Board means to carry out the job in the most scrupulous and satisfactory manner that it can. Our only desire is to frame the Bill in the most precise and effective manner. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us that with the draftsmen at his command he feels unable to do that, subject to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S Silverman) might say, I do not think that we would press the Amendment further.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I agree with my right hon. Friend that nothing much would be achieved by dividing the House now or by discussing the point further, but it would be wrong if I did not record the dissatisfaction which any old Member of the House would feel about accepting in any Statute, and especially a Statute which involves the expenditure of public money, a form of words which is admitted by the Government to go far beyond what is the case.
It may be that the alternative suggested by my right hon. Friend is not acceptable to the Government. It may be that no other form of words ever suggested in Committee or here would be acceptable, but it is clear that the words in the Bill are, or ought to be, wholly unacceptable to any Member of the House who seriously accepts that it is the function of the House to control public money.
I hope that if we do not divide against or in favour of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter again. I hope that he will ask his draftsmen to find a form of words which will limit the powers of the Cotton


Board in this respect to those which the Government think it ought to have, and not give it the wider indeterminate powers now given to it. It cannot be beyond the capacity of Parliamentary draftsmen to find a suitable form of words to do something which everybody can see the Bill does not do. A Bill presented in this clumsy, slipshod way does no credit to the Government, or the House, or to the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out:
loss of employment due to
and to insert:
the loss of the particular employment occasioned by".
The Amendment will ensure that where compensation is paid for scrapped machinery, compensation will also be paid to displaced workers. As the Bill stands that is not bound to happen. There is some ambiguity about the interpretation and understanding of the words in the Bill:
… in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of the excess capacity.
The aim of the Amendment is to ensure that, where an employer receives compensation for machinery that is scrapped, the operatives who were employed on that machinery will also receive compensation irrespective of where they go or what they subsequently do.
This problem has been highlighted by the news in the Press during the last few days. It has been reported that the 53 years old head of the £3 million Taylor-Walker brewery firm is to be given £60,000 for loss of office consequent on merger. This sum will be paid irrespective of whether this gentleman goes to another highly remunerative job. It is for loss of office.
5.15 p.m.
We are living in a world of false values and false assessments. On the basis of the table of maximum entitlement provisionally agreed between the unions and the employers in the cotton industry, I calculate that this gentleman, who no doubt is a very estimable gentleman, is valued at 240 textile operatives. That is scandalous. The principle that applies to the payment of compensation

to high salaried people for loss of office should apply equally to workers who are declared redundant under this scheme in pursuit of which large sums of public money are to be spent.
I do not want to go into a lot of detailed cases, but I should like to quote examples of the problems that will arise. A firm not very far from where I live has declared its intention to close one of its two spinning mills and to transfer the operatives to its other mill and employ them on a two-shift system. That will mean that the firm and the shareholders will qualify for compensation because machinery is being scrapped. As the Bill stands, and without some guidance to the negotiators, it may well be that the workers who are transferred will not get any compensation, although some of the married women will find it inconvenient to accept work on a shift system.
Another interesting case is that of the Cairo Mills at Waterhead. This mill has been closed for one year. The machinery is still in place. As the Bill is framed, I assume that if the firm gives an undertaking to scrap its machinery within the time to be later specified by the Board of Trade it will qualify for compensation. There is a considerable amount of machinery in the mill and the shareholders are expecting compensation of £100,000. One of the directors of the mill stated:
The Cairo ceased production in June of last year, and therefore has no operatives to compensate.
It is not the intention of the Bill that large sums of money should be paid to shareholders who should be allowed to escape liability, or at least have only a very small liability, for compensating operatives who have been put out of work.
If some differentiation in the basis of compensation cannot be made in respect of mills which closed before 23rd April, some deduction should be made, and this sum allocated to the central pool for compensating displaced workers in other mills. Firms such as I have quoted should not be able to get away with it scot-free, without paying any commensurate compensation for the workers who previously lost their livelihood.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment. It lays down an important principle for the


guidance of trade union negotiators. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the workers are represented by their trade union leaders, but the ultimate conditions of the agreements must have regard to the Bill. I understand that considerable progress has been made in the negotiations between the trade unions and employers and that the employers have accepted, or are likely to accept, the principle of an unconditional lump sum payment for half the compensation, but the other conditions to which I have referred are basic ones, which should be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment.
I, too, have every confidence in the skill and persistence of the trade union negotiators who are now seeking to get the best they can for their men in negotiations with the employers within the four corners of the Bill but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has said, the principle on which that compensation is to be negotiated must be laid down not by the employers or trade union leaders but by the House of Commons, and it is in that spirit that my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment.
What ought the principle to be? There is not a word in the Bill to make it incumbent upon anybody to provide a displaced cotton worker with any other employment. I do not know that it would be very relevant to my hon. Friend's Amendment if there were, because, as he has pointed out, in other walks of life, when compensation on a very different scale and scope than this is paid, it is paid unconditionally and without any clog on it, or any interference with the right of the man who receives it to order his life exactly how he thinks fit. In the case to which my hon. Friend referred the man concerned could, if he chose, never do another day's work in his life—and he could well afford not to—but he could equally choose to do any other work and earn as much as he was able to earn, without his compensation for the loss of his former office being affected.
The anomaly in the case referred to is that, apparently, the man concerned will receive £60,000 compensation for loss of an office that he is not in fact going to lose. As I understand the newspapers, he will remain in full enjoyment of it and

become almost a tenant for life of it. But he guts the compensation just the same, on the basis that he has devoted a part of his life to a particular job; that that job has been taken away from him for reasons for which he is not personally responsible, and that it is therefore right that in the general financial arrangements he should be compensated for his loss.
All that my hon. Friend is asking is that the principle shall be applied to cotton workers who are displaced from their employment as a result of the operation of a scheme under the Bill. What can there be against that proposal, in principle? What is wrong with it? Why should there be any difficulty about it? Why was it not readily accepted? Why was it not put into the Bill in the first place? If, after spending 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years in an industry, and even in one factory, a man loses his job, although he may find some other employment outside the industry—and more likely outside it if its excess capacity is being reduced—he must begin again with all his roots pulled up, and all his associations and background, and the skills that he has painfully acquired and developed in a lifetime, taken from him. That is why he is compensated. We should not interfere with that payment of compensation simply because he is resilient enough and has the guts enough to adapt himself to the new circumstances, and make a new life for himself in the new world which the Bill has created for him.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I was hoping that by this time the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to tell us more about the negotiations which have been taking place. We are in difficulties in trying to define certain principles in the compensation terms when the trade unions and employers are actually engaged in working out a scheme, which we hope will be an agreed one. For all I know, the trade unions may have rather different ideas than have hon. Members in this House about the form and nature of the compensation. It is obvious that many questions may be asked, not only on the Bill but on the Amendment.
I had assumed that the words in subsection (2, b) meant "the loss of the


employment" in which the worker was engaged at the time, but if the unions are proposing that there shall be a modification or even a cessation of compensation for a displaced cotton worker who obtains suitable alternative employment, my interpretation is clearly not necessarily correct.

Mr. Thornton: If I remember rightly, the Minister gave it as his interpretation that the words "loss of employment" meant the loss of the particular job at the particular firm. I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a case where one of two mills owned by the same firm was closed and its operatives transferred to work double shifts in the other mill. As I understand the Minister's interpretation, no compensation would be payable to the displaced operatives, although compensation would be payable to the shareholders of the firm in respect of the machinery made redundant.

Mr. Houghton: I wondered what attitude would be taken up by the trade unions in those circumstances. Generally speaking, compensation in respect of redundancy is not granted if the employer is able to offer the man concerned a comparable job in the same field of employment without loss of pay. It is merely a transfer from one place to another.
I am connected with the public service, where redundancy gratuities are not paid if one job ceases and another is offered in the same sector of employment for the same remuneration but in a different place. An employer pays redundancy compensation only if he says "Goodbye" to the worker. That is really what compensation is for. It is the discharging of an employer's liability towards an employee when his employment with him ceases. I do not know what view the unions will take about that sort of situation if it comes about under the reconstruction scheme.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend will notice that in the case of the brewery firm the gentleman in question is to be transferred to another job within the same group of breweries. It is a case parallel to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, but with great respect, unfortunately what happens in the case of a brewery chairman and other V.I.Ps. and business tycoons cannot be the basis of compensation of other workers. It seems to me that it really does not take us anywhere. Much as we may deplore some of the things that happen and though we may regard them as ludicrously generous, especially if they result in an untaxed gain, they have nothing to do with the realities of the situation in this industry or with the compensation terms of, possibly, a large number of workers.
I am genuinely seeking light on what the Bill will do in certain eventualities and more light still on what the unions want done in certain eventualities. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assist the House in the matter I am sure that we shall all be very grateful to him.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he could clear up one point raised by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr Thornton). It seems to me, as I understand the method of dealing with the question of compensation, that all spinning mills will receive compensation for the spindles that are destroyed and that all those mills will pay into a common pool to provide compensation for the employees. Otherwise I do not quite understand what subsection (5, a) means when it says
for raising by means of charges to be imposed
unless it means that all mills are going to pay. That means that the example mentioned by the hon. Gentleman of one mill which was going to scrap spindles but which had already parted a year or so ago with some of its employees will, in fact, have to pay, according to an agreed standard, some money into a common pool to be eventually paid out to all the employees in the cotton trade whose services will be dispensed with. If that is not the case, then the hon. Gentleman has raised a point which needs dealing with.
It seems quite inequitable for a firm which closed down six months ago to get a large sum of money for spindles which are going to be put under the hammer compared with a firm which has attempted to keep going and has lost, possibly, £50,000 in the last six months,


a firm with a realisation of public service and a feeling of responsibility towards its employees, which has endeavoured to weather the storm, has lost a lot of money and has, finally, decided that it must close down, That firm will get the same compensation for its spindles but may lose an amount equal to half that compensation by way of payment to its employees which it will have to put off.
If that is what is to happen, it seems that we ought to endeavour to correct it, but if my first interpretation is correct, it seems to me that the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will not arise.

The Parliamentary Secretary, to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): Hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the spirit which motivated the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who seconded it. The Amendment follows on exchanges which hon. Gentlemen had in Committee with my right hon. Friend on the question of whether operatives who were made redundant through the operation of this Measure would be adequately compensated. We all appreciate the necessity for that. There is no doubt at all, I think, on this point. As my right hon. Friend told hon. Members in Committee, the words at present in the Bill would enable the arrangements to provide for compensation to be paid to persons who lose their existing jobs irrespective of whether they find new ones, if that is how the unions and the employers want them to be framed.
The Government's view, however, is that the arrangements must be settled between the two sides and not imposed upon them by the Board of Trade. We are not prepared, as my right hon. Friend made abundantly clear in Committee, to compromise on this fundamental principle which is really a matter for negotiation between the unions and the employers. Indeed, the arrangements now in contemplation as the result of recent meetings between the representatives of employers and unions in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections will include provision for compensation partly in the form of unconditional payments and partly of weekly instalments subject to termination or reduction in the event of the operative obtaining other

employment. As I said earlier, it is not for the Board of Trade to lay down the conditions.
With reference to the two points raised by the hon. Member—

Mr. S. Silverman: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain further why he thinks that this particular principle ought to be left to be negotiated instead of being laid down by Parliament. Is it not the case that it leaves it open to the negotiators to assess compensation on this basis, but does not make it mandatory upon them to do this? There being only a limited amount of money at stake and the argument being a very long and difficult one about how much money one can get for compensation and how to apportion it, that puts the negotiators on the trade union side in an extremely difficult position and makes it difficult for them to stand out for the principle which they would like in case it affects the amount of money which they are likely to get. If we laid down in the Bill this principle as a principle of compensation, then that would be outside the area of negotiations and the negotiators would be free to discuss the amount and methods, and all the rest of it.

Mr. Rodgers: We spent a great deal of time arguing why the Government had taken this line. It was because in their wisdom they thought that it was a method which the unions and employers would prefer and, indeed, that it would be better for both parties. Indeed, I think that to date the results in the three sections which I have mentioned falsify the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I do not think that the unions have found themselves inhibited or in any great difficulty in applying the principle on which we have operated, that is voluntary agreement between the two sides of industry, as is traditional.
I turn now to say a word or two about the two points raised by the hon. Member for Farnworth. Again, I would like to stress that both matters are really for the unions and the employers. But I think, in the first case, that where one of the mills is closed down and the operatives have been offered alternative employment in another mill owned by the same company, no compensation would he paid unless the man was asked


to take a lower paid job. I think that is the case there, but I should not like to be dogmatic about it.
With regard to the case of the Cairo Mills where the machinery is standing but where the operatives have been laid off for some time, this is a matter for Mr. Burney and the Special Committee to see what steps ought to be taken. It is not for the Board of Trade to lay down compensation conditions in a case like that any more than it is overall, as I told the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
A further snag in the Amendment is that if it is accepted, the scope of the condition under subsection (2, b) on which the Board of Trade must be satisfied would, we believe, be somewhat restricted. The effects of the Amendment are uncertain and might be quite different from what hon. Members opposite expect. The limitations to
loss of the particular employment occasioned by
might be construed as implying that Parliament was interested only in ensuring that an operative had compensation for the period between losing his job and getting a new one at the same or a higher wage and did not envisage the possibility of compensation payments being resumed if he lost the new job during the period over which his entitlement to compensation would otherwise have continued. We believe that it might be so construed. It might be construed that an operative should lose his instalment payments—not his lump sum—if he got another job. In view of the ambiguity and for the reasons I have stated, I very much hope that hon. Members opposite will either withdraw the Amendment or that the House will reject it.

Mr. Jay: I am rather puzzled by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and I am now left in considerable doubt as to what the Bill means on this point. The broad principle which my hon. Friends want to put forward, and on which we all agree, is that compensation should be available to the employee who loses his job even though he gets another and should not be available only if he is left unemployed.
It seems to me that the argument introduced by my hon. Friends is relevant and that, since this is the principle which is

applied in the case of those highly-paid personnel of whom we have heard, it ought to apply also in the case of ordinary cotton workers in Lancashire. I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that the case of one or other of the highly-paid company chairmen is irrelevant, if only for this reason.
When these large sums are paid for loss of office, even though the director concerned immediately takes some other job in the firm or out of it, it is not just a question of a private arrangement being made in a private firm, as nobody knows better than my hon. Friend. The normal practice, we understand, of the Inland Revenue is not to charge tax on these sums which are described as compensation for loss of office. Therefore, it is recognised as public policy by the Treasury, through the Inland Revenue, that tax should not be paid in that case, even though it is perfectly well known that it is compensation simply for losing the individual or particular office, or however it is described, even though another job is at once obtained.

Mr. Houghton: My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to refer to my observations. He will recall that in Committee I spoke emphatically in favour of unconditional compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence we then had of what the unions were prepared to agree to did not include unconditional compensation. So I am at least pure in heart on that.
As regards tax, my right hon. Friend knows that these payments would not be subject to tax either. His reference to the brewery chairman—it is a great pity we cannot all be brewery chairmen—

Mr. S. Silverman: Or brewery shareholders.

Mr. Houghton: —was a matter of scale and amount and not, it seemed to me, of principle. I hope that there is no rebuke implied in my right hon. Friend's observations, otherwise I would wish to join issue with him a little more strongly.

Mr. Jay: It is a great pity we cannot all change round from being one brewery chairman to another brewery chairman. However, on the principle, I think, we are all agreed.
I am slightly puzzled by the Parliamentary Secretary's doctrine now that


what the Bill does, and what we ought to do, is to leave this point to be wholly determined between the trade unions and the employers in each section of the industry. Looking at the Bill, as I always do, not as a lawyer but as somebody hoping to understand English, even if not plain English, it seems to me that what subsection (2) now says is that if these schemes are to be approved and public money is to be paid, the Board of Trade must be satisfied of certain conditions. One of the conditions under subsection (2, b) of which it has to be satisfied is that arrangements have been made within the section of the industry for the payment of compensation in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of surplus capacity. That is to say, if the Board of Trade is not satisfied of that, it does not pay the money and the scheme does not go forward.
In Committee, in answer to my question as to what the phrase
in respect of loss of employment
now meant in the Bill, I understood the President of the Board of Trade to give an answer in line with what we have proposed: that is to say, that it means that a person gets the compensation even though he obtains another job. It may be that we have to add the qualification "another job in another firm".
5.45 p.m.
If that is so, the Bill appears now to say that the scheme cannot go forward unless the Board of Trade is satisfied that there is an arrangement of that kind in force, in which case, surely, it is not open to the employers and the unions to make a different arrangement, because if they did, it would not qualify for the receipt of public money. If the Bill does not mean that, can we be told exactly why not?

Mr. J. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that before accepting any scheme which is put forward by one of the sections in the cotton industry and laid before this House, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade must be satisfied that the condition that adequate compensation has been paid to displaced workers is met. The decision on what is adequate compensation, however, is left to the two sides to negotiate. If it

is proved, it will then be part of the scheme which my right hon. Friend would consider.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) must have missed the point I mentioned concerning the arrangement that already has been reached in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections, where, I understand, the unions and the employers have agreed to pay compensation in two forms. One is unconditional payments whether a man gets another job immediately or not. The second is weekly instalments, subject to termination or reduction in the event of the operative obtaining other employment. That, I understand, is the agreement which has now been reached in those three sections. In a sense, that partly answers the right hon. Gentleman as to whether compensation will be paid irrespective of the fact that a man gets another job.

Mr. Jay: It may well be—do not dispute it for one moment—at that agreement has been reached in those sections and that compensation is to be paid in both forms. This in itself, however, does not affect the meaning of the Bill. Why am I wrong in supposing that the Bill as it stands, assuming that the interpretation given by the President of the Board of Trade of the words "loss of employment" is right, must mean that at least some compensation must be paid in such a form that a man gets it regardless of whether he takes another job? If this is so, some of our anxieties at least would be met. I speak subject to correction by the more legally learned Members of the House, but is it not the case that that is what the Bill now means?

Mr. Rodgers: As I understand it, it means that the compensation can be paid irrespective of whether a man gets a job, if that is what both sides of the industry so recommend.

Mr. S. Silverman: If I understand correctly the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), he is saying that the words of subsection (2, b) mean more than that a scheme of compensation can cover loss of employment even though other employment is obtained. What my right hon. Friend is saying is that the words mean that it must cover that, at least


to some degree. He is further saying that, as he understood the President of the Board of Trade in Committee, the President was also of that opinion.
It makes a great deal of difference to what the House might like to do with the Amendment whether the point is, in fact, covered by the existing words of the Bill. I hope I have made myself clear. It is sometimes difficult to do so when dealing with semantics rather than with the principles of the Bill. The point is whether the principle of compensation for loss of employment due to the elimination of excess capacity, irrespective of what happens afterwards, is to be compulsorily applied as the Bill now stands or whether it is open only to those who negotiate compensation to cover it if they like.

Mr. Rodgers: As I understand the Bill, it is only open for the compensation to be paid irrespective of what happens afterwards if both sides feel that is a correct solution in the particular case.

Mr. Thornton: We are pursuing an interesting point. I have had a long negotiating experience with the employers, and our relationship is quite good. I say, not in any critical sense, that from the outset the employers were determined not to pay anything in the

nature of a lump sum settlement, and that it was only after it became apparent that the unions were not prepared to accept that position and that the proposal in the Bill was that unconditional compensation should be paid, that the employers changed their position. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I was very grateful to him for his powerful plea about unconditional lump sum payments because it was most helpful support to the case which I was attempting to put. The scheme we are discussing now is, to use the phrase of the President of the Board of Trade, rather unique, in that unconditional payments for scrapped machinery may be made. My contention is that unconditional payments should be paid also to the workers who are displaced.

Mr. Rodgers: What has happened in negotiations between the unions and the employers is a vindication of the attitude of the Government, which is that these matters are best left to unions and employers. The illustration given by the hon. Member for Farnworth is better than anything I could have said at this Dispatch Box.

Question put, That "loss of employment due to" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 210.

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[5.53 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brewis, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Browne, J. Nixon (Graigton)
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.,


Alport, C. J. M.
Bryan, P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Errington, Sir Eric


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Erroll, F. J.


Armstrong, C. W.
Carr, Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Channon, H. P. G.
Fell, A.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel


Atkins, H. E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Conant, Maj, Sir Roger
Forrest, G.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Cooke, Robert
Foster, John


Barber, Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Freeth, Denzil


Barter, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gammans, Lady


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, F. V.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glover, D.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Godber, J. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Cunningham, Knox
Gough, C. F. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Currie, G. B. H.
Cower, H. R.


Bidgood, J. C.
Dance, J. C. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Bingham, R. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)


Bishop, F. P.
de Ferranti, Basil
Green, A.


Black, Sir Cyril
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Body, R. F.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Doughty, C. J, A.
Gurden, Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dray son, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Braine, B. R.
Duncan, Sir James
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braithwaite, [...] Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duthie, Sir William
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)




Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, J. E.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclean, sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Hay, John
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Robertson, Sir David


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macleod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Henderson Stewart, Sir James
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sharpies, R. C.


Hornby, R. P.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Horobin, Sir Ian
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mathew, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Howard, John (Test)
Mawby, R. L.
Speir, R. M.


Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nairn, D. L. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Teeling, W.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, Richard
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
O'Neill, Hn.Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr, Cant. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdate)
Vane, W. M. F.


Kimball, M.
Partridge, E.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kirk, P. M.
Peel, W. J.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Leavey, J. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick


Leburn, W. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Legg-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pott, H. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Linstead, Sir H. M.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longden, Gilbert
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Woollam, John Victor


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Profumo, J. D.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rawlinson, Peter



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McAdden, S. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Renton, D. L. M.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Forman, J. C.


Ainsley, J. W.
Chapman, W, D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Albu, A. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cliffe, Michael
George, Lady Megan Lloyd'(Car'then)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Clunle, J.
Gooch, E. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Cronin, J. D.
Greenwood, Anthony


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Balfour, A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benson, Sir George
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Beswick, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Deer, G.
Grimond, J.


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hale, Leslie


Blenkinsop, A.
Delargy, H. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blyton, W. R.
Diamond, John
Hamilton, W. W.


Boardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hannan, W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Donnelly, D. L
Hastings, S.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hayman, F. H.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Healey, Denis


Bowles, F. G.
Edelman, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hilton, A. V.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holmes, Horace


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fernyhough, E.
Holt, A. F.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Houghton, Douglas


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Howell, Charles (Perry Ban)


Carmichael, J.
Foot, D. M.
Hoy, J. H.







Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Steele, T.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.
Stonehouse, John


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Owen, W. J.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Padley, W. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paton, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Kenyon, C.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, N.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Popplewell, E.
Thornton, E.


Lawson, G. M.
Prentice, R. E.
Tomney, F.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Vlant, S. P.


Lewis, Arthur
Probert, A. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Lipton, Marcus
Proctor, W. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Logan, D. G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Weitzman, D.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Randall, H. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Rankin, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McCann, J.
Redhead, E. C.
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacColl, J. E.
Reeves, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


McInnes, J.
Reid, William
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, Frederick


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mason, Roy
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, Richard


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mendelson, J. J.
Skeffington, A. M.
Woof, R. E.


Messer, Sir F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Monslow, W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Zilliacus, K.


Moody, A. S.
Snow, J. W.



Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewls'm,S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Short and Mr. Simmons.

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
and
(c) that bodies representing the interests of a majority of the persons employed in the section have agreed to those arrangements so far as they relate to persons whose interests are represented by those bodies".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): With this Amendment we can discuss that in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
and that such arrangements have been agreed to by organisations which in the opinion of the Board of Trade represent the majority of the employed persons affected by the arrangements".

Sir D. Eccles: The Amendment is designed to meet the wishes expressed in Committee last week, and I think that we have found words which carry out the intention of both sides of the House.
We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that agreement in principle has been reached among the spinners, doublers and weavers on both sides that the lump sum unconditional payment shall be one-half of the compensation and the other half shall be in weekly payments at a rate which

is abated so as not to conflict with a man's entitlement to unemployment benefit. That is what the unions have decided to be best for their members, and, as I said previously, I am glad that there is an element of lump sum payment in it, because I think that that is a good thing.
This change in the principles of compensation, which was agreed last Thursday and which has since been agreed by the bodies representing both employers and operatives, very considerably increases the liability of the employers. I pay tribute to both sides for having modified the previous set of principles and coming together in the way that they have. It gives us good hope that in all other matters in which co-operation between the two sides is essential to the success of the Bill, that co-operation will be forthcoming.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The President of the Board of Trade has substantially met the point which we put to him in Committee. We are grateful to him for the consideration which he has shown to the arguments which we advanced on that occasion. It is true to say, I think, that the position of the


trade unions in these negotiations is now stronger than it was and I hope that some of the speeches which have been made in our debates on the Bill may have helped in that direction. We appreciate the gesture which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and in the circumstances, I do not propose to move our Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
and
(c) that consultation has taken place with the appropriate local authorities in any area to be affected and that every practicable step has been taken to meet such objections as they may have".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take that in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
and
(c) that adequate consultations have taken place with the local authorities in the areas affected".

Mr. Silverman: I regard this as an Amendment of principle to the scheme of the Bill. As the Bill stands, it is a cotton industry Bill alone. All the factors which have to be taken into account are factors strictly and narrowly within the area of cotton industry problems, namely, whether capacity is excess capacity or not, and whether, when capacity has been determined to be excess or surplus capacity so that it is eliminated, compensation shall be paid both to the owners of the eliminated mechanical capacity and to the labour which is eliminated or made redundant. As the Bill stands, no other consideration is taken into account.
It was repeatedly said from this side of the House on Second Reading that we regarded that as one of the main defects of the Bill. I do not know what was said on this matter by hon. Members opposite, since we heard very little from them on Second Reading or in Committee. The point we have always to bear in mind—and it is something which the Government must have had in mind when they decided to introduce the Bill—is that the present state of the cotton industry has social consequences of a fundamental kind. Yet, in the measures which they propose in the Bill, the Government pay no attention to them.
Among the bodies to be consulted one would have thought that the local

authorities would have taken a high place, because if the Bill works at all it will have a disastrous effect in many towns and small villages of Lancashire. There are villages which depend solely on the work done in a solitary mill. If that mill is regarded as being excess, if, in the scheme which the Minister confirms and the House adopts, that mill disappears, it means that the whole livelihood of the village has gone. It must be somebody's duty to have regard to consequences of that kind.
During the Committee stage we asked the Government to make these social changes one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether a scheme was good or not. The Government would not do it. We are now asking them to do something less than that, but something which still takes it into account to some extent. We say, "At least, when the scheme is being formulated, have a look at what the social consequences will be. Go to the local authority and say to it, 'If the scheme is carried out in this form, what will it mean to you? What objections have you, as a local authority, to the scheme's being carried out as it has been formulated?'".
The Amendment does not ask the Government to make the local authority the judge of whether or not a scheme shall go forward. It does not say that if the local authority has objections that is the end of it. It does not even say that if the local authority has objections which the Government cannot overcome that shall be the end of it. It asks for something short of those two propositions. It says, "At least, find out what the objections of the local authorities are, find out whether they are good objections, find out whether there is any way of overcoming them, and do not approve the scheme in the end until at any rate you have consulted the local authorities in some way and their objections have been considered."
It is impossible to understand why the Government boggle about that. Clause 1 provides almost in its very first words that some bodies shall be consulted by the Cotton Board and the Board of Trade. It does not expressly provide that local authorities shall be among them. The Amendment asks that they should.
I referred a moment ago to the problem of the small village with only one mill. That is not the whole problem. On the first Amendment, dealing with the clearing of sites where there are derelict factories, one of my hon. Friends talked about finding houses for workers. That is not the problem in many Lancashire towns. The chief problem is to find tenants for the empty houses which are there now. There is already a considerable rating problem in many of the towns in the North-East Lancashire area. Nelson is losing about £5,000 a year in respect of rates for empty houses. Colne is losing a proportionate amount. I am sure that Burnley is losing in the same way, but perhaps losing less because it has more alternative industry. Other towns are in the same position.
Suppose that in towns like those in my constituency, where cotton is certainly the basic industry and almost the only industry, the excess capacity elimination schemes have the result of closing down one-third of the cotton mills. Is it not clear that that creates an enormous social problem? We have already said that a Bill which was doing the job properly would seek to plan not only the cotton industry, but the area. The Amendment does not go as far as that, but it says that that should be taken into account.
The North-East Lancashire area is a Development Area. It has a development committee on which all the local authorities are represented, and the committee tries to attract new industries into the area within or outside the distribution of industry legislation. It is enormously concerned if the Government are proposing to reduce cotton producing capacity in the area. Why cannot the Government consult it?
6.15 p.m.
There is not merely the area development committee. Nearly all the towns in the North-East Lancashire area have their own development committees. Nelson has had one for many years, and it has been not altogether unsuccessful within the limits of the powers which the Government have accorded it. Colne has had one more recently, and it is a very active committee. Its chairman is the prospective Conservative candidate who will be opposing me at the next

General Election. Why should he not be consulted? His committee is concerned, the Nelson committee is concerned and every local authority in the area is trying to assess what will be the effect on our development problems of a Bill which is to contract the cotton industry still further, whether it will increase the migration of population from the area, whether it will increase the wastage of social capital, whether it will lead to more empty houses and more empty shops as well as more empty factories, and whether it will increase the rate at which the population becomes an ageing population.
They are not going to sit back and do nothing about it. They are active already, and they are doing reasonably well using their own powers, using their energies, using their initiative and using their imagination, inviting people to go there and to some extent succeeding; but all these are matters which have to be related to what their fate will be when the Bill is passed.
All we are saying to the Government is, "Do not imagine that you can act in this way so as to introduce an element of still greater subversiveness into the social machinery of a whole area, and do not think that you, as a Government, are entitled to spend public money on doing that without taking into account at all the elected representatives of the population of the area and the problems for which they are responsible to the people who elected them."
I hope that the Government will consider this matter a good deal more sympathetically than they have any of the Amendments with which we have so far dealt. I do not want to be emotional about this subject, but one could easily be emotional about it. The House has heard many speeches about this area, about its past and about the contribution which it has made to the national glory as well as to the national wealth, its increasing and accumulating sufferings, and its attempt to rehabilitate itself while the Labour Party was in office between 1945 and 1950 when people were assured that the future of the cotton industry was secure.
The Government cannot ignore these things. For the young people leaving school, there are already apprenticeship and juvenile employment problems.
What are the children to do? Are they to remain there, or are they to go out of the area, and if so, are their parents to go with them? The Government must pay attention to these matters. They must act with a sense of responsibility to the area as well as with a sense of responsibility, if they have one, to the industry. They were slow enough in doing anything for the industry itself. Let them at least at this stage make it clear that they will not ignore the problems of the area.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir D. Eccles: I explained on the Committee stage that any proposal to write social factors into the conditions for determining which capacity shall be eliminated would cut right across the whole plan of reorganisation of the cotton industry. The object which we are seeking to achieve by the Bill is very difficult. Let no one think that it will be easy to reorganise this industry and leave it confident, compact and competitive. As one looks round the world, keen competition is to be seen everywhere. We know that if a Free Trade Area for Europe comes into being competition will become even keener.
We shall not be able to restore confidence in this industry or secure that very large sums of new money are invested in it unless we cut out the dead wood. That can be done in two ways. First, it can be done by compulsion. We could make a survey in London, with such technical advice as we could obtain from Lancashire, and we could then, by Order, concentrate the industry, as was done during the war when it was necessary that workers should go to armament factories. Secondly, it can be done by a voluntary scheme, bearing in mind that voluntary action is in peacetime most likely to attract the real co-operation of the people concerned. The Government have rejected compulsion and have decided to undertake reorganisation of this great industry on a voluntary basis. Mills will be given a short time in which to qualify for the compensation terms being worked out by the Cotton Board's special committee.
When considering the Amendment, which would introduce another concept into the choice of mills to close down.

it is important to remember that the Cotton Board will not select any mills to close down. Indeed, the risk is that not enough owners of mills will apply for compensation to achieve the first object of the Bill, which is to leave the industry in an efficient shape.
What would happen if we accepted the Amendment and placed on the Cotton Board the duty of consulting local authorities about accepting an application for compensation from any particular mill owner, if on social grounds an owner who applied for compensation was refused that compensation and told that his application could not be entertained? The mill might then close of its own accord, in which case its workpeople would receive no compensation. Alternatively, the mill owner will say that he must have a subsidy if he is to keep open. We cannot compel a mill to keep open. If we once stray into the realms of subsidies for operating cotton mills, gone for ever is our hope of reducing the surplus capacity, of cutting out the dead wood.

Mr. Boardman: Is it not a point, also, that a private company has no social responsibility?

Sir D. Eccles: Indeed not. If the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) will look round the great bulk of our firms today, he will find that the boards of directors have a very great social responsibility.

Mr. S. Silverman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not seen my hon. Friend's point. We agree that very many private firms have a great sense of social responsibility. In Lancashire many of them have shown it. But they cannot show it after they go out of existence. The point is who will show any social responsibility for the consequences of their closing down?

Sir D. Eccles: A mill cannot continue if it is making a loss. If the owner of such a mill applied for compensation under the terms of the Bill, it would be impossible to refuse the compensation and then tell him that he must stay in operation.
If we consulted local authorities, naturally their advice would be that certain mills should not close. It is open to local authorities to make their views


known to the Cotton Board. I know that the Cotton Board is ready to hear them. The House must examine what it would mean if we accepted the Amendment. In the Lancashire area of the cotton belt there are eighty-five local authorities. There is the county council. There are eight county boroughs, twenty non-county boroughs, forty-six urban districts and ten rural districts. It is not possible that the interests of all those local authorities would coincide.

Mr. W. A. Burke: Is a mill going to close down in each one of them?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot tell the hon. Member that. I know that it would wreck the possibility of a rational reorganisation of this industry if the Cotton Board had to take into account the views of eighty-five local authorities in Lancashire as well as some in Yorkshire. Todmorden and three or four other local authorities in Yorkshire would have to be consulted also.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member keeps rising. He must let me continue.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman should talk about the Amendment.

Sir D. Eccles: The anxieties of local authorities are very well known to us and appreciated by us. As I said in Committee, the mayors of many of these towns have been down to London to see either the Prime Minister or myself. We understand their anxieties. We understand what it means when the population has diminished—loss of rates, loss of custom for their shops and a feeling that their town is on the downgrade.
The first thing to do for all these local authorities is to stop that deterioration. The first thing that it is right to do in their own interests is to produce an efficient cotton industry with a good hope of expansion hereafter. If we were to take into consideration now the kind of social factors which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would have us take into consideration, we should not do that which is our first duty, namely, to leave the cotton industry in a thoroughly healthy condition.
I fully agree that we must not stop at making the cotton industry compact and

efficient. We have a second duty, which is to look after the casualties. The casualties will not be anything like as numerous as the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods will be assured if the Bill is a success. So I am very ready indeed to consult the local authorities but, as I have already said this afternoon, we shall be in a much better position to talk to them about the future of their population when we know where the mills are to close and when we have some estimate of the residual unemployment that will result.
We have a number of powers in the Development Area part of North-East Lancashire—more powers than we have in an area that is not scheduled—but we are prepared to look at the problem, and to do an exercise as soon as the size and nature of the problem becomes apparent. On the other hand, I think that I should be doing a grave disservice to Lancashire by accepting an Amendment that sounds very nice when put to an individual authority but which would have the effect of blurring, and, I think, of spoiling, any chance that we may have—and I think that it is quite a good chance now—of shaping this industry so that it becomes competitive and expanding once again.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Perhaps I may say a few words with the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade was as a dove of peace on the last Amendment, but I am disappointed with his latest reply.
We all agree that it is not easy to reorganise the cotton industry, and I do not think that anyone has suggested that it is. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, although it was tempting to do so, we did not table Amendments in Committee relating, for instance, to the need for the regrouping of units in the industry, or other Amendments directed to rather more radical reorganisation than is likely to take place. We have not suggested that there should be a compulsory scheme. We have agreed to give the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to procure a voluntary redeployment of industry a chance, although we have expressed grave doubts whether this Bill will achieve the ends that we know he has in mind.
I want to put to the House, very simply, what we are trying to do by this Amendment. We are saying that if a firm suggests to the Cotton Board that one of its mills should cease to operate, and that mill is in a village whose whole livelihood and social life depends on it; and if, at the same time, the firm has another mill of approximately the same size in a town where there is a diversity of industry, the Board should say to the firm, "We think that it will be much better for you to close the mill in the town, where there is full employment. If you wish to close the mill in the village, we cannot agree to that proposal, and no compensation will be available." We believe that that would have the general effect of serving the social interests of the area without doing any harm at all to the structure of the industry. The case is as simple as that.
We appreciate, of course, the readiness of the President of the Board of Trade to consult the local authorities on these and other matters. The difficulty is that, so far as we can see, he will talk to them about their future when, perhaps, a future will not any longer be available to them. Unless we can have a much more helpful reply from the right hon. Gentleman, I shall certainly ask my hon. Friends to vote in support of the Amendment.

Mr. John McCann: The Minister has made quite a lot of play with the number of authorities that are affected in the textile area. To us on this side, the number stresses the seriousness and size of the problem.
The Amendment is simple. It says that the appropriate local authorities must be consulted. The important thing is to know that every practical step has been taken to meet such objections as the local authorities may have, and we can tell the right hon. Gentleman here and now that they are already viewing with seriousness any contraction in the areas affected. It is the complete and utter responsibility of a local authority to bear in mind the social implications of unemployment in its area.
Hon. Members opposite will recall that during municipal elections they have made great play with the importance of local government—" Keep local government local"; "Take local government out of the hands of the Ministry." I fully agree that the local authorities should

have the responsibility for the social and cultural amenities of their town or area. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said that the local authorities should not be the final arbiters. In page 7 of the White Paper we find:
The Government for their part will assist through the machinery of the Ministry of Labour and, where appropriate, by use of their powers under the Distribution of Industry Acts.
It goes on to say:
Judging from past experience (see paragraph 4) the numbers who will have a continuing difficulty in finding new work will be much less than might be feared.
That might have been the case in the contraction of 1952, but in the last twelve months the number of jobs available in the Lancashire textile towns has fallen to the point, where, in some cases, there are 26 unemployed for each vacancy. It is against that background that Lancashire has to look at the problem.
The Rochdale local authority, recognising the problem a year ago, tried to get inserted in its local Bill a Clause giving it the power to encourage industrialists to come to the town by making loans to them, but the town clerk writes:
At the hearing before the Lord Chairman of Committees on 7th May the representative of the Board opposed these provisions and based his objection on the grounds that it was the province of the Board of Trade to secure a proper distribution of industry and he mentioned the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill …
which, it was claimed, would solve the problem.
Rochdale still has 45·5 per cent. of its population engaged in the textile and ancillary trades. Against that background we face mill closures. New industries are obviously a factor, but one finds that in the last two months of last year and the first month of this year, in the Rochdale spinning sub-area, provision was made for one new factory of 8,000 sq. ft.—20 ft. by 400 ft. I do not think that we shall get much machinery or employment out of that in an area in which 45·5 per cent. of the people are in the textile industry.
Migration is the most important reason for providing that local authorities should be consulted. Time and time again my hon. Friends and I have complained of migration. I know that I


have given the following figures to the House on previous occasions, but all we can do is to keep drumming them in until the Government realise that migration is essentially a social as well as an economic matter. In 1950, Rochdale had a population of 89,530. That figure had dropped to 85,310 at the end of 1957, last year we lost another 800, and all the indications are that this year the rate of migration is accelerating.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now realise why it is that we want him to consult the local authorities. The local authorities may now be planning services for people who will not be there to use them, or by taking account of migration they may be running the risk of not having adequate services should there be a fresh influx of population. Before the war, one of Ireland's main exports was young men. Unfortunately, the position in Rochdale is becoming the same. Therefore, I beg the President of the Board of Trade favourably to consider this Amendment.
This is not an attempt to delay the Bill, which we agree will make for a more efficient industry. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this more efficient textile industry will not operate evenly over the whole of industrial Lancashire. While it operates efficiently in one area, it can, in the name of efficiency, completely denude another area of work. That is the problem we face. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it through the eyes of the local authorities. The local authorities, in the last analysis, have the problem of looking after the welfare of their people.

Mr. Burke: I merely wanted to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question. I agree with him entirely that the big problem is, first, to get rid of the dead wood in the cotton industry. As he knows, every local authority is

very much concerned about what is to take the place of the dead wood. He knows also—I raised this question on the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act—that, to a large extent, the power to build new factories now lies with him. If an area is a Development Area, the power lies with the Board of Trade.

If a factory in a certain area is closed, will the right hon. Gentleman agree, if the Amendment is withdrawn, to consult the local authorities about putting another factory in its place? That is the kind of thing that we really want. If the industry itself decides to go out, will the Minister then consider putting something in its place?

Sir D. Eccles: I would remind the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) that Burnley is in North-East Lancashire and, therefore, is in the Development Area. I have said that we are ready to build factories there with Government money, if we can find an industrialist. We have better hopes now that trade is picking up. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary and I will give this and other areas in the United Kingdom where there is the problem of unemployment continuous attention and high priority.
I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), but, with great respect to him, an efficient cotton industry could not be evenly distributed over Lancashire. That is one of our difficulties. To have an efficient industry, we are bound to have a lack of balance in distribution between certain areas. It is better to achieve an efficient industry with that lack of balance and then make it good in the kind of ways which the hon. Member for Burnley suggests. That is what we intend to do.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 246.

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[6.42 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Beswick, Frank
Brockway, A. F.


Ainsley, J. W.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Broughton, Or. A. D. D.


Albu, A. H.
Blackburn, F.
Brown Thomas (Ince)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, A.
Burke, W. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blyton, W. R.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Callaghan, L. J.


Balfour, A.
Bowles, F. G.
Carmichael, J.


Benson, Sir George
Boyd, T. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.




Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Chetwynd, G R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Cliffe, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reid, William


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lawson, G. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Frederlok (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, A. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edelman, M.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McCann, J.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stonehouse, John


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Simon
Stones, W. (Consett)


Fletcher, Eric
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Foot, D. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Swingler, S. T.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, C. P.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gooch, E. G
Messer, Sir F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Tomney, F.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Watkins, T. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hastings, S.
Owen, W. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Healey, Denis
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parkin, B. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, John
Willey, Frederick


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.


Alport, C. J. M.
Body, R. F.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip Northwood)


Atkins, H. E.
Braine, B. R.
Cunningham, Knox


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Currie, G. B. H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Brewis, John
Dance, J, C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R. C.
Davidson, Viscountess


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Deedes, W. F.


Barter, John
Bryan, P.
de Ferranti, Basil


Batsford, Brian
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Campbell, Sir David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Carr, Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Channon, H. P. G.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Duncan, Sir James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Duthie, Sir William


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Bidgood, J. C.
Cooke, Robert
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cooper, A. E.
Elliot,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)







Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kaberry, D.
Pott, H. P.


Erroll, F. W.
Keegan, D.
Powell, J. Enoch


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fell, A.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Kirk, P. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leavey, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Freeth, Denzil
Leburn, W. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gammans, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Glover, D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Glyn, Col, Richard, H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gough, C. F. H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Roper, Sir Harold


Gower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
McAdden, S. J.
Sharples, R. C.


Grant-Ferris, Wg.Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Shepherd, William


Green, A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Grimond, J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Gurden, Harold
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)
Storey, S.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hay, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mathew, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Teeling, W.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mawby, R. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Holt, A. F.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hornby, R. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Howard, John (Test)
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wall, Patrick


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nugent, Richard
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborne, C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Page, R. G.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdals)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jennings, J. c. (Burton)
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John Victor


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Peel, W. J.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth



Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitman, 1. J.
Mr. Hughes-Young and




Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
and
(c) that in respect of every excess capacity proposed by the reorganisation scheme to be eliminated adequate consideration has been given to the need of providing employment in the area affected and of the appropriate distribution of industry".
The House has now decided that we should not in the Bill require the Board of Trade to consult with local authorities in the cotton areas before selecting mills for closure under the scheme. What we propose, leaving aside local authorities, is that there should be consultation within the machinery of the Board of Trade and
the Cotton Board to ensure that before individual mills are selected for closure the effect on employment and unemployment in the neighbourhood is taken into account in additon to the technical facts and figures within the firm and mill.
Although the President of the Board of Trade has been conciliatory on some subjects today, he is still inclined to be a little stubborn on this point. I ask him not to turn down this principle so dogmatically that he is unable to give effect to it in carrying out the Bill. I regard this point as the most important in the discussions on the Bill, since we


are all agreed that what matters to displaced employees, even more than compensation, is that they should get jobs. We propose, leaving aside the local authorities, that there should at least be some consultation by the committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up under the Cotton Board with individual firms about which mills should close and that in the course of that consultation the employment situation should also be considered.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not suggesting—it would be quite foolish to do so—that in making this selection the relative efficiency or inefficiency of an individual mill or the comparative costs between one mill and another should be left out of account. We propose that, in addition to those extremely important factors, the need for employment and the distribution of industry, or lack of it, in an area should also be taken into account and that these factors should be weighed one against the other.
Throughout our discussions, the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said, "You cannot do this because what we are aiming at is an efficient cotton industry, and, therefore, the issue of the efficiency in each mill must be the determining factor". What I think he has not fully realised is that often—this has been the experience in the concentration of this and other industries—one can find an enormous gap between mills in terms of efficiency and costs. In some cases there is a large gap, but it may be that between one, two or three mills there is very little in it either way. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point. It may be immaterial for an individual firm whether it closes this mill or that.
If this situation is not considered from the employment point of view, the result may well be something that nobody intended or foresaw, namely, that a mill is closed where unemployment is probable and where it can be foreseen. A firm will not close a mill in another area which is fully employed and much more fortunate even though, from the point of view of efficiency and costs, there is no material difference between the two.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the experience in many cases, and it follows that if there is no

consultation we are likely to get the most haphazard results which nobody would wish. Three or four mills may be closed in a heavily concentrated cotton area which is already suffering from unemployment. On the other hand, mills may continue to work in other areas which are fairly fully employed and not nearly so dependent on the cotton industry. I will not give examples of different areas in Lancashire, but there is every prospect that this will happen if there is no consultation, whereas, with a little thought and examination, it may well be possible to avoid it.
I do not think that our proposal departs from the spirit of the White Paper, which states that the committee, agency, or whatever it is to be called, under the Cotton Board is to approve details of reorganisation schemes. If it is to approve other details, surely it can at the same time consider the point to which I have referred. I do not believe that Lord Rochdale or his colleagues, still less the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade authorities, would regard our proposal as impracticable or undesirable. It clearly can be done and the irony of the situation is that it was done with, one might almost say, meticulous care when the industry was concentrated in wartime. Although we are not operating under the same conditions as we were during the war, the principle is the same, namely, that there is an uneconomic result if manpower is released where it cannot be re-employed, whereas there is a more economic result if the operation is so planned that manpower is, so far as practicable, released where it can be used in alternative productive work.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of what he has said hitherto, will not close his mind to our suggestion. As I have said, I do not think that it is inconsistent with the White Paper or with the Bill as it stands. If the right hon. Gentleman would at least keep the matter open and make an effort to maintain the principle of consultation and to weigh one factor with another, we may achieve what I should have thought every hon. Member would want to achieve, namely, the quickest and fullest possible re-employment of those who will inevitably lose their jobs as a result of reorganisation under the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I wish to support the Amendment. To emphasise the need for it I will quote an illustration from my own division. This process has been going on for some time and that is the reason for the production of this Bill. Industry in Lancashire has been moving. Cotton mills have been closed and other work has taken their place, unfortunately not in sufficient quantity to fill all the gaps. But there has been this change which in Lancashire is recognised as necessary. People are prepared to see further movement of that kind, and a further change-over from cotton to some other industry, but all the time we have been trying to do what this Amendment suggests, which is that where it becomes necessary to close cotton mills, for example, every effort should be made to provide alternative employment.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of coordination in this work. The circumstances I am about to relate are not the fault of the President of the Board of Trade. There is a firm which wishes to build offices and workshops in my Division in the famous town of Oswaldtwistle, but it has been refused permission by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Ministry should have consulted with the President of the Board of Trade before reaching such a decision, because Oswaldtwistle depends on the cotton industry, and every opportunity should be seized to bring in fresh work. Instead, this project has been turned down, against the wishes of the local urban district council. It has been told that the Minister has decided that this area is not scheduled for industrial purposes.
That is strictly true. It is not scheduled for anything. On the town map the area was shown as one not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future. It has no amenity value at all. It is backed by a rubbish dump 20 ft. high. On one side it is bounded by an evil-smelling stream. Opposite is a cotton mill and an engineering company, and in the next block there is a soft drinks preparation plant.
One would have thought that in an area where cotton workers are being displaced, if a firm said, "We are prepared to build works to provide immediate employment for 50 people and possible

employment for 100 people," any Ministry would give permission straight away; or, at any rate, approach the President of the Board of Trade and say, "I understand that you are introducing this cotton reorganisation scheme. Would it help to give this permission?" But no, the permission is refused. That is an example, which I do not wish to elaborate, of the sort of thing that is going on. I suggest that it shows the need for some provision to be inserted in the Bill such as suggested in this Amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has evidently discovered, as have most of us, that planners are good when they are on one's own side. Regarding the case he mentioned, I will do my best to discover whether there is any chance that these people can find a site where they can start to build.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said this was a different principle. But the principle in this Amendment does not differ from that in the last one. We are asked to consider the level of unemployment when persuading mills either to stay open or to shut. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that very often there will be cases in which there is little difference between two mills. That is not the advice which I have received, and I have inquired carefully on that subject. To start with there would have to be a firm which had several mills and was ready to shut one of them, and that mill would have to be more or less comparable with another of its mills. I am told that such a circumstance is very rare, and I notice that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) agrees with me. That being the case, I do not think it would be very easy to bring this kind of condition or qualification to their notice.
On the other hand, the employment situation in the cotton belt is such that I think employers will consider seriously whether it is to their advantage to continue to have this or that mill in operation. If I can, I should like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman about this problem by giving the facts as we now know them. I have been able to get the unemployment


figures for June in respect of the twelve D.A.T.A.C. areas in the cotton belt. The national figures are not yet ready, but I have secured this information. It is striking when one remembers that the D.A.T.A.C. areas were selected because of the high and persistent level of unemployment there, and only for that reason. Now one sees the change in the position. I will quote the figures for one or two towns at random. Let us take Oldham to start with. In June, 1958, a year ago, the figure for Oldham was 3·5 per cent. In May, 1959, it had risen to 4·8 per cent. The June figure is 3·1 per cent., well below the figure for a year ago. Perhaps I may take the figure for Colne. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not stay in the Chamber after he had delivered his last speech. The figure of unemployment for Colne in June, 1958, was 3·3 per cent. In May, 1959, it was only 2·6 per cent. It is now 1·7 per cent. In June, 1958, the figure for Nelson was 5 per cent. In May, 1959, it was 2·2 per cent., and in June of this year it was 1·5 per cent.
I should like to give the figure for Rochdale because the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) has been very good and has stayed in the Chamber all the time during our debate. In June, 1958, the figure for Rochdale was 3·1 per cent. In May, 1959, it was 2·2 per cent., and in June it was 1·9 per cent.

Mr. McCann: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that reduction is caused by people leaving the town? A lot of people are moving out and emigration is our main worry. The reason for these figures is not that more people are finding jobs but that people are leaving the town.

Sir D. Eccles: When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures for vacancies for last month, I think that he will take a rather more optimistic view of the situation.
What is interesting about these figures is the very big drop in the numbers of people temporarily stopped. One hon. Member was afraid that the number of those temporarily stopped was increasing, but the very opposite is happening. There is a sharp drop in that number. Indeed we know that at the moment the cotton industry is picking up very well, and that is one of the reasons why it

will be quite a struggle to get a sufficient number of firms to agree to go out of the industry. Therefore, if we introduced any additional conditions such as have been asked for in this Amendment and the two previous Amendments, we should make it even more difficult.

Mr. Jay: Do not these figures illustrate my point? Do not they show how quickly unemployment figures go up and down in the areas? Whatever the level in a particular area, does it not remain true that if five mills suddenly closed down, in, say, Nelson, there would be heavy unemployment in that area, whereas if the same number closed down in Preston, it would have little effect on the general employment situation? Surely that remains true.

Sir D. Eccles: When the right hon. Gentleman considers the magnitudes he will realise that we are talking about a spread of only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. It is a curious fact about unemployment in this country—where it is so much lower than in other countries—that if the figure goes over 3 per cent. to 3·5 per cent., the Government are supposed to be in danger, but if the figure goes down to 1·5 per cent. they are supposed to be facing inflation and a boom. It is a remarkable thing that the whole reputation of the Government depends, as it were, on only 1½ persons out of 100.
The right hon. Gentleman says it is wonderful how the unemployment figures go up and down. I accept that, provided that he will congratulate the Government on the fact that they have now come down again and if he is as pleased as we are about the very remarkable results in these very D.A.T.A.C. areas. I do not know what we shall have to do with a D.A.T.A.C. area in which there is only 1·5 per cent. unemployment.
I would conclude by saying that it is a good thing that unemployment should have fallen in these areas, and that that will make it easier for us to do what all hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House want to do, namely, to bring new and alternative work for those who are not likely to get permanent jobs in cotton in the future.

Mr. McCann: Some of us are quite concerned about the fact that only one week's notice is necessary in order to close a mill, whereas eighteen months


are required to bring a new industry into the area. As I understand it, the operation of the new Bill will be spread over five years. The reorganisation will be determined by the amount of machinery which we can get, and if the Board of Trade could say that a mill could be left open for twelve months, and, in the meantime, could bring in industry and spread that operation over five years, would not that help this particular project?

Sir D. Eccles: This is a tough problem and we have to pursue a tough policy if we are to get the results we want. Therefore, although I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, I think the real answer to him is that if general trade keeps good, as it is now, we shall be able to absorb those in the cotton industry who lose their jobs, and, if it does not keep good, nothing that any Government can do could entirely meet the question. Therefore, with those considerations in mind, I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Rhodes: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one further point? We have an area which has been scheduled as a D.A.T.A.C. area, for whatever reason. It has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it may be that action is taken because of a slight difference between one area and another—a difference of 1½ per cent, such

as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a difference of 1½ per cent, in unemployment can make a Government think very hard about changing the status of a whole area.

This is precisely what we have been saying for a long time. An area which adjoins an area which has been designated may approximate to that situation at one time, and at another time may be above or at another time below that percentage. That is a point of consideration in designating a complete area. It is only likely that Members like myself, who represent areas of the kind which I was describing this afternoon, feel rather hurt about this indiscriminate scheduling of areas, when the problem in the adjoining area in another month's time might be precisely the same, from the criteria point of view.

I ask the Government to think in terms not so much whether the unemployment is just below or just above, but of the actual intrinsic need, and to decide whether to get rid of the rubbish in the shape of old buildings or bring in more industry, rather than apply a rigid criterion.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 237.

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Albu, A. H.
Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Clunie, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R, H. S.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hamilton, W. W.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Benson, Sir George
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Beswick, Frank
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hayman, F. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Delargy, H. J.
Healey, Denis


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, John
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Blenkinsop, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Blyton, W. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hilton, A. V.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holman, P.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Douglas


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hoy, J. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fletcher, Eric
Hunter, A. E.


Burke, W. A.
Foot, D. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Forman, J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Carmichael, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Chapman, W. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)




Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paton, John
Storehouse, John


Kenyon, C.
Pearson, A.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pentland, N.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lawson, G. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Swingler, S. T.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, R, E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Logan, D. G.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Probert, A. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McCann, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Thornton, E.


MacColl, J. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Tomney, F.


McInnes, J.
Randall, H. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Viant, S. P.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Redhead, E. C.
Warbey, W. N.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reeves, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Mahon, Simon
Reid, William
Weitzman, D.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reynolds, G. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mason, Roy
Rhodes, H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willey, Frederick


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moyle, A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Skeffington, A. M.
Winterbottom Richard


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Woof, R. E.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Orbach, M.
Snow, J. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Owen, W. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Padley, W. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, A. M. F.
Steele, T.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.


Parkin, B. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.


Aitken, W. T.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gurden, Harold


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Alport, C. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)


Atkins, H. E.
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hay, John


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Davidson, Viscountess
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barber, Anthony
Deedes, W. F.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Barlow, Sir John
de Ferranti, Basil
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Barter, John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Batsford, Brian
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
du Cann, E. D. L.
Holt, A. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duthie, Sir William
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bingham, R. M.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bishop, F. P.
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Body, R. F.
Fell, A.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Braine, B. R.
Freeth, Denzil
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Brewis, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Glover, D.
Kaberry, D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bryan, P.
Godber, J. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, P. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Gough, C. F. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carr, Robert
Gower, H. R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Leavey, J. A.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Leburn, W. G.


Cooke, Robert
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Green, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimond, J.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Linstead, Sir H. N.







Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Longden, Gilbert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Storey, S.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Osborne, C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Page, R. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lucas,P.B.(Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Partridge, E.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peel, W. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McAdden, S. J.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Teeling, W.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitman, I, J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


MacLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pott, H. P.
Thompson Kenneth (Walton)


MacIeod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rawlinson, Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Maddan, Martin
Redmayne, M.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maitland,Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Renton, D. L. M.
Wade, D. W.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wall, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mawby, R. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sharpies, R. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Neave, Airey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woollam, John Victor


Nicholls, Harmar
Speir, R. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Stevens, Geoffrey



Nugent, Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Rhodes: Just formally to move the Third Reading of a Bill of this description is not good enough. I say again, as I did on Second Reading, that if I could find tellers who would stand by I would very willingly vote against this Measure. It has been ill-conceived; it has been introduced at the wrong time; the money which is made available has not enough strings to it; and it is unworkable, because it is indefinable.
It may be that one or two people who know their business on that side of the House will now, on Third Reading, give us the benefit of their experience and, perhaps, an analysis, from an economic point of view, of how it will benefit any one of these sections of the trade. I shall listen with great interest and humility if they are able to prove to me that there is anything in this question of increase of efficiency likely to ensue from this Bill.
I do not know whether hon. Members read the Manchester Guardian last Saturday morning, but if they did they will have read the speech of Mr. Harrison, who is the head of English Sewing Partners, a gentleman for whom I have

the greatest regard, whose judgment I have always respected because it has been sound. He is not the sort of man who would badger either a Government Department or anybody to achieve a temporary advantage. His position is one of analyst; he has the ability to assess what is likely to be beneficial in terms of change.
Mr. Harrison told the organisation which assembled last Friday—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden), were he in the House, would bear out, because he was with me at the same place—that he could not see from the inquiries and research which had been made by that organisation how, even if the new machinery were put in and worked as it is likely that it will be worked—with 38-hour shifts, too—and with the price the machines are, the members of the organisation could do anything but break even with the cost of producing a similar yarn on one shift with the old machines.
It is the most depressing thought that up to this point we have not had a sufficiently accurate analysis from an economist's point of view—and I do not mean the point of view of an academic person: I mean the point of view of a person who knows his job—of what the machines are likely to yield in terms of years. It makes one wonder why we


have not had it. However, the reason is not far to seek. We had a reflection of the real reason in this Chamber during the passage of the Bill.
When I said that the Bill was born wrong I meant that the inception was from the wrong premise. We on this side of the House took great advantage of the fact that the cotton industry became a depressed industry some months ago and we repeatedly pressed the Government to act. It is the duty of the Opposition to tell the Government where they think the Government are going wrong, but it is the Government's duty to assess the situation in terms of economic need and not to give way to something which may be crudely put forward as a vote-catcher.
We did not vote on the Bill on Second Reading, and we shall not be voting on Third Reading. I must repeat that if common sense had prevailed on both the Socialist and Conservative sides of the House, a discipline in terms and conditions could have been written into the Bill, had we been wise enough, so as to leave politics out of this subject. We on this side, because of the compensation which it provides for the workers, have not voted against the Bill. But that is not a sufficient basis for putting an industry on a proper economic footing. Provision is not made for altering the structure of an industry and for giving money to people who do not need it for the sake of accepting "lolly", to quote a colloquialism. But that is what the Bill amounts to, and we shall very much regret what is being done under the Bill. It will not succeed.
I hope sincerely that we shall be able to say that the Bill has really benefited trade, but I am sure that it will not benefit it in the way desired by those who are best equipped to think about these matters. I should like to show to the House a little exhibit in the form of the proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Textile Institute held at Scarborough this year. The conference was devoted entirely to the subject of machines. Its purpose was to ventilate ideas about machinery in the industry.
In the light of Mr. Harrison's comments I have looked up some of the statements made at that conference, and in the light of the experience which the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) and I had in Japan, I have made

some interesting comparisons. One of the experts in this trade gave in his paper two instances of the productivity of machines. According to his figures, the machines which are available in the country at present in a highly efficient mill are 20 per cent. down in productivity already compared with what we saw in Japan. If that is the case, it is the Government's duty and the duty of those who are paying the money to see that money is not spent foolishly.
I regret that up to now there has been no semblance of an economic argument for the installation of this machinery, either in the course of debates in the House or from either side within the industry. The Government, unpopular in Lancashire, wipe out the yarn spinners in England. The spinners must fend for themselves. Competition cuts right through at a time when they are in difficulties and it makes haywire of their prices. The industry needed discipline, and a stiff one, but I wonder whether it is thoroughly understood that what is likely to be created under the Bill is another monopoly. We are likely to substitute one monopoly for another, but without the ability in this case to do anything about it through the Monopolies Commission.
We as a Parliament are saying that the industry would be best worked as a monopoly, but we have had no guarantees that the machines will be worked for the best. I ask the House to imagine the kind of desultory argument which will proceed for many months on whether a 38½-hour or 40-hour week should be worked, or whether two shifts should be worked at all. The Bill is founded on the belief that everybody will be co-operating for the best inside the industry, but there is no agreement on that point.
This is why I say to the industry at this point, "For goodness' sake, when the schemes are put up see that they are such as will bear investigation and critical analysis." It is the duty of all of us in the House to see that these schemes are subjected to the most rigorous examination. Things have gone so well for the Government in terms of timing that it was suggested last week that schemes for sections of the industry might be brought forward towards the end of the Session. I do not want to be too vitriolic on this subject, but I would remind the House that we have spent all


this time on a Bill which has been described time and again as nothing more than an enabling Bill and yet we may reach the last week of this Session without sight of the arrangements or schemes which are to be put forward by any of the sections in the industry.
We can all be busy scurrying about on this, that or the other, whether it is holidays or elections, while the real point of the Bill, and our responsibility to the taxpayer, is lost. I am not likely to get anybody to assist me in opposing the Third Reading, but I think that it behoves the House to insist that we have a day on which we can discuss the details of each scheme, because it is in the schemes that the importance of the Bill resides.
I think, too, that we shall have to do some rethinking in terms of the entry of machines. Do not let us start off, this time, lagging behind the productivity of machinery manufactured in any part of the world. I warned the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill that this could only mean postponing the time when we shall again be faced with the same problem, and then we shall either have to face it in the way we are doing now, with another reduction, or else we shall have to introduce protection. It is as simple as that.
The present spurt of trade is the seasonal one which usually comes one year in three when there is good weather. I beg the Lancashire cotton trade not to be beguiled into thinking that because we are having a good summer, and stocks are being shifted, they can sit back and wait for the next man to do something about the position. It will not work that way. Every one of the upturns in trade has been followed by something worse than has been known before.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will think over these things. He has dealt with the Bill very fairly and he has been as accommodating as a President of the Board of Trade could be who has already committed himself up to the hilt. I warn him not to expect too much. Let him take this as a lesson in the encouragement of productivity of the machines of Lancashire and of housing those machines as they should be housed.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The House always listens with attention to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and I do so with special attention because I know that in his own business, which is wool, he has applied the highest levels of efficiency and has risked his own money in getting first-class equipment. When people do that, we listen all the more attentively to what they say to other people about what they should do in their businesses.
The hon. Gentleman challenged us to advance an economic argument for the Bill and I must say, frankly, that there is not one; that is to say, there is not one worth £40 million.

Mr. S. Silverman: Or 6d.

Mr. Shepherd: If it were the case that all we hoped to derive from this legislation was the activity and the change represented by £40 million of investment, it would be money almost thrown away. I will try to tell the House why I support the Bill, although I believe it is dangerous and I wish that we had not got to pass a Bill of this nature.
In my view we would not be having the Bill had not the post-war history been what it was. The real reason why the cotton industry got into its present state was that (a) we had far too much easy trade in the years 1946 to 1951 and (b) we had far too splendid a result from out attempts to recruit more labour to the mills in the early years after the war. Had we had a harder time in those five years after the war, or had there been a failure in the recruitment of labour, I feel certain that we should not be facing in Lancashire the present serious situation.
None of us on this side of the House who believes that the Bill is justified wants to avoid facing the facts of the situation.

Mr. Thornton: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, whilst I agree with him that the industry was rebuilt too quickly between the years 1945 and 1951, surely he will give credit for the large contribution made by the cotton textile industry to Britain's export drive in those crucial years?

Mr. Shepherd: I am not one of those who wish to write off the cotton industry


What I want to do is to get it into a position where it can face competition, at any rate in Western Europe, and we have not reached that situation yet. I do not write off its export value because, even though last year we imported more yardages than we exported, the net value of the imports as against exports was £22 million. That was because we export more expensive fabrics and import less expensive ones, so it has its merits in that direction.
However, we should not try to ignore the fact that unless there is a facing of the facts by both sides of the industry, as a consequence of the Bill £40 million will be poured down the drain.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not £30 million?

Mr. Shepherd: It will be £30 million or £40 million. One of the objections to this procedure is that commitments are made before getting the other side of the bargain, and that is not normally the way I like to see business done.
I have said that we must face the situation. The situation now is that we in Lancashire cannot compete with the countries in Western Europe. I am ignoring Asia. Productivity in spinning is about 7 per cent. below what it was before the war. Our entire cotton industry is in a deplorably unsatisfactory state, and if I were asked why we are in this situation I would say that there are mainly two reasons.
The first is that owing to the restrictive practices of the yarn spinners the price of yarn was kept up at an unduly high level. On the other side, the restrictive practices of labour made it virtually uneconomic to spend huge sums of money on investment in new machinery. I was appalled the other day to hear one of the leaders of Lancashire say that if he put another £1 million into his business, he would go outside Lancashire. The truth is that if there are, on the one hand, restrictive practices by the yarn spinners and, on the other, restrictive practices by labour, one embarks on new machinery with huge risks to the capital and burdens the business with a cost of production not much less than that of the man who has machinery dated 1808. This is not a state of affairs which should be tolerated, and if we tolerate it after the Bill becomes law, all the

money that will be spent by the Government will be wasted.
We have to face up to the fact that labour has to give a new deal in Lancashire. I am not one of those people who criticise the Lancashire workers. I think that the only people who criticise the Lancashire workers are those who do not know them. One will not find a better crowd of people anywhere in the world than the Lancashire textile operatives, male or female.
It is nevertheless a fact that in a situation such as we have today, involving enormous capital costs, we cannot get sufficient production to cover our outlay unless we have new arrangements in respect of labour, including shift working and the like. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite realise how much this business costs. Let me give one example. If we were involved in a textile business here and we wanted to set up a spinning mill to employ 400 workers it would cost us £2 million to do it. That is £2 million to employ 400 workers—200 on two shifts. We should turn over in that mill during the course of a year about £1 million worth of business, and it would take us two years to turn over our initial capital. The conversion value of the material that we were handling would be about £400,000. These are stupendous figures.
If this enormous weight of capital is not matched by some forward-looking ideas on the part of labour, the Bill is a sheer waste of time, because we shall not be able to operate effectively against Western European competition on the basis of the present arrangement. Indeed, it would be better that we should not try, because it is no good pouring down the drain millions of pounds of private shareholders' money and millions of pounds of Government money which would only result in our being shut out of the markets of the world.
Therefore, I say that the Bill is justified only if it means that each side of the industry realises that it cannot go on as it has been going on in the past and that we must have a new start in Lancashire from which we can hope to achieve a better showing than we have achieved in the post-war years. We can do this. There is nothing that is done in Holland, Germany or Belgium that cannot be done as well, or better, here.

Mr. McCann: Is being done.

Mr. Shepherd: That is true in many respects, but if there had been more satisfactory conditions, more of the mills would have been in operation. The pressure against doing something by way of modernising and keeping our house in order has been so great that there has been no real incentive to those who have tried to do it.

Mr. McCann: I have followed the hon. Member's argument with great interest. I can go a long way with him, but, surely, he is missing two points. One is the competition from the Far East, which created a lack of confidence here, and the other is the fact that since the war £150 million has been spent on the Lancashire industry in doing exactly the thing that he is saying has not been done.

Mr. Shepherd: When one realises how little £150 million buys and that this is the gross invested figure, not the net, and that to employ two shifts of 200 men one has to put down £2 million, one realises how small on a total labour force of 200,000 that total investment has been.
I think it would be wrong to argue that this industry has had the capital investment which was necessary to meet the conditions of competition in the world today. So far as the East is concerned, I am quite prepared to believe that the Bill is justified because, coming on top of dealing with the Asian problem and the restrictive practices problem, and in the anticipation of getting more flexibility in the matter of labour operations, there is a chance of the industry realising where its future lies and of going forward.
I am not a pessimist about this industry. I know that there are men in it who are operatives and men in it who are directors of the highest level, and managers as well who are the equal of any in the world. We have, however, to realise the fact that if we take this £40 million from the Government and say that it is another sop to keep us going for another couple of years, all this money will have been of no avail.
I have one final point to make on Asian competition. We are proposing to spend money in an attempt to build up this industry to something like competitive efficiency. I hope that the Government will not take the view at the end

of three years that Asian competition is to come back. There, again, I feel that this would be a waste of money. I do not want to argue this case because I should be out of order in doing so on this Bill, but I am not satisfied that the Government's stand against any regulation of imports from a Commonwealth territory is sound or necessary. I think that we shall not throw over the whole concept of the Commonwealth by doing this. When I think of how India, for example, altered the treaties of 1939, I realise that other Commonwealth countries do not regard the position as so immutable as we do.
I hope that my right hon. Friend in his capacity as President of the Board of Trade, realising that he is spending a dubious £40 million—[An HON. MEMBER: "£30 million."]—£30 million or £40 million—will try to safeguard this expenditure by seeing that we do not at the end of three years find Asian competition once more flooding in.
I am satisfied in my own mind that some reasonable regulation is not inconsistent with our responsibility as a colonial Power. Therefore, I give the Bill a not entirely unqualified blessing. Whether it succeeds or not does not depend on this House; it depends on those outside in Lancashire. If we can make them realise the opportunities before them and that they have in this House a great deal of good will, and particularly if labour will realise that there must be more flexibility and that the out-of-date wages lists must go and that machinery has to be worked two shifts, and if possible three shifts a day, then I think that the Bill will do some good. It must not be regarded as a form of public assistance. It must be merely a starting point for a new deal in Lancashire, and I hope that will be so.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) says that he brings to this Bill a not unqualified blessing. I listened very carefully to his speech and I did not hear any words of blessing at all. We have listened to two well-informed and challenging speeches, both of a somewhat pessimistic nature, and that is disturbing on Third Reading of the Bill. If the Bill does anything at all of use it is to invest money in the future of the cotton industry. That is something to be noted by those who say


that the Government should not invest money in private industry. That is precisely what we are doing in a somewhat unconventional way.
Another observation that I would make in passing is that the two other national industries falling on difficult times like cotton have, fortunately from many points of view, already been nationalised, so that their problems can be dealt with on a national scale with a full sense of public responsibility and with a knowledge that whatever investment is made in those industries will return to the national good and not go to private profit. I am sorry to introduce this somewhat partisan note on the Third Reading of this Bill, but the occasion for enabling people to get something straight are so rare that one has to seize the opportunity when it occurs, and it seems to me that the opportunity occurs now.

Mr. S. Silverman: I take it that my hon. Friend is not apologising for doing so.

Mr. Houghton: I am certainly not apologising for it.
It is important to note that the Bill deals with private enterprise in decline, and it is a very unpleasant spectacle with many grievous consequences—social, human and economic. Private enterprise in prosperity is most peremptory and imperative in telling the Government "Keep out. Do not interfere. We do not want help or interference. We want to be left alone, and we can then prosper." However, when industry falls on evil times, the assistance of the State in one form or another is called for persistently.
The cotton industry is suffering mainly from the expansion of cotton textile industries in other countries which are competing with us in world markets and of late have successfully invaded our home market. To protect the industry from the latter, a demand was repeatedly made for the imposition of tariffs and quotas to enable the home industry to have the full benefit of the home market. The Government took the view that, having regard to our Commonwealth obligations, they could not assent to the imposition of tariffs or quotas on imported Commonwealth goods and were not prepared to create diffi-

culties within the Commonwealth on the general question of trading relations even for the sake of protecting an important industry like cotton.
I do not say that the Government were wrong in taking that view. To have consented to the imposition of tariffs and quotas would have been a marked departure from our traditional policy of trading relations within the Commonwealth, although it can, of course, be urged that other countries within the Commonwealth cannot indefinitely expect to send their goods here free of quota and duty if they are going to take what we may regard as unreasonable steps to protect their own industries to the damage of ours.
Furthermore, the problem of the cotton industry arises because it is heavily concentrated in one part of the country. Too many people are dependent upon it in too few places. The effect on the social, municipal and economic life of the cotton towns has been fully described in moving terms by many of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: How does the hon. Gentleman propose that the poorer peoples in the underdeveloped parts of the Commonwealth should be able to raise their standard of living if we deny them the right to sell what they produce?

Mr. Houghton: I have great sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). During the past two years I have had the opportunity of going to India and Pakistan twice, and I have had that question put to me by people with whom I have discussed the problems of the cotton textile industry in Britain. They have said, "How can we raise our standard of life, how can we buy the things we want in world markets for capital development, if restrictions are to be placed on the export of about the only thing we can for the time being export to other countries, including your own?"
It is very difficult indeed to meet that point having regard to the big differences between our standard of living and theirs, and their economic problems and our own. Yet we cannot be oblivious to what is happening in our own cotton areas. It can, of course, be urged to


some extent in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question and the question which was put to me many times in India and Pakistan that a prosperous Britain is probably as good a support of their economy as an enlargement of their export trade, for they will at least need from this country help with their capital equipment and we shall have to give it by loan, grant or special facilities of one kind and another. However, it is most important, I admit, that we should refrain from doing anything which may impair the opportunities of those other Commonwealth countries to improve their economic position and standard of life.
As I was saying, the Government decided, for reasons which seemed to them to be overwhelming and which were certainly of great weight, not to impose tariffs or quotas on Commonwealth imports. If private industry is suffering from the effect of the competition of other textile industries elsewhere and the Government decline to give the industry some measure of protection against that competition, then, clearly, decline on account of natural causes, as one might say, is aggravated by the Government's refusal to adopt conventional methods of protection.
Having reached that decision, the Government undoubtedly had an obligation towards the industry. I do not object to the provisions of the Bill to give compensation to those who will go out of business. It was the only thing in this or a similar form that the Government could do at this stage, and it seems to me that there is little profit in going back over the past into what might have been done in recent years. We are faced with a situation for which the Government had some responsibility.
Therefore, the aim of the Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said, is purely an enabling Bill, is to enable Ministers to approve schemes of reorganisation and use Government money for the purpose of implementing them so that the industry may be smaller, more efficient and more competitive at the end of the day.
If that aim is not achieved, then I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle that the money will have been wasted. This is not in its ultimate purpose

merely the giving of money to people who will agree to go out of business. It is not just compensation for loss of their assets or goodwill—whatever may be left of that—or an effort to save their private fortunes. This is a means to an end and if it does not achieve that end, it will have failed and the money will have been wasted.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it is rather disappointing that we have not had more convincing and tangible evidence that the Bill will bring about the purpose which it seeks to achieve. We have not seen any of the reorganisation schemes. We have had only a glimpse of the compensation terms. Everything is on trust.
The Minister will have a very big responsibility for the schemes which come forward, and the House will have a responsibility, too. Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, it will be extremely difficult for the House critically to examine the merits of particular schemes. Which of us will be able to say that particular schemes are good or bad, or ought to be different, or bigger or smaller, or in different areas, or in different sections of the industry? There will be a few hon. Members who may have views on the matter, but the House as a whole will not.

Mr. S. Silverman: I remind my hon. Friend that even if the House came clearly to the opinion that a particular scheme had many defects, there would be absolutely nothing whatever that the House could do about it, because the scheme would come before the House in the form of an Order in Council which could be accepted or rejected only as a whole.

Mr. Houghton: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. It shows that the House will have little effective power over the results of the Bill.
I am sure that both sides of the industry will go into the scheme determined to make it work if they possibly can. This is a supreme challenge not only to this industry, but to private enterprise, which is asking for Government help to reorganise itself and to make itself more efficient and more competitive. We shall


certainly wish from time to time to hear what the industry is doing to meet that challenge. If the industry is basing its hope merely on being smaller for the trade which will come to it easily and without effort and without improvement in efficiency, the expenditure of public money will not be justified.
The industry has to be more efficient and more competitive in the hope that it will be able to expand in the future, for there will be an unlimited world market for textiles as the standard of life of the poorer countries improves. Those countries will want more clothing and in many Asian countries that will mean cotton textiles.
As one goes about the world one can see that half the people are not properly clad, and it will be cotton textiles which will give them the raiment they require. There will be a tremendous market for cotton textiles and there is no reason why this country should not have a share of it.
Those are my thoughts on the Third Reading of the Bill and there is nothing more that I can usefully say. I have no special knowledge of the cotton industry except that one part of my constituency is heavily involved in this operation. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne with close attention. There is no doubt that he and the hon. Member for Cheadle made observations which both sides of the industry should read and which the country should note. I hope that before we finish with the Bill we shall hear something from the right hon. Gentleman, now that it is all over bar the final speeches, to give us greater reassurance than has come from all the debates which we have had on the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to keep the House for very long, but I should like to say a few words since this is a Bill of importance to the north-western part of England and to Lancashire in particular. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) laid great a stress on the fact that the Bill is a supreme challenge to the cotton industry. In that, I agree with him entirely. This is a method which has been conjured up to try to resuscitate

and make efficient and economic an industry which, owing to world and national conditions, has been in decline for generations.
We have a great responsibility to this industry. Personally, I think that it has been overlooked by successive Governments for far too long. Over the last twenty years, various Governments have tried to make a stab at doing something about it, but substantially they have all failed. Whether this scheme will meet the case remains to be seen. I think that it will. I think that the time is ripe and that the Government have got hold of something which will meet the situation provided that there is proper and adequate co-operation and a sense of responsibility among all the parties concerned, that being of the utmost importance.
On Second Reading, I said that labour had great responsibility to come to terms with employers. It was suggested that I was holding a pistol at the head of labour. It was nothing of the kind. All sides have equal responsibility to make the scheme work. Several people could frustrate it altogether, but it would be deplorable for Lancashire and the industry if that were allowed to happen.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), to whom we all listened with the greatest respect, seemed to be the one man in the House who was marching in step. He was full of criticism of this venture, but I thought that it was undue criticism. As he pointed out, this is an enabling Bill. This is only the first part, a small part, of the Government's policy for meeting the situation in Lancashire.

Mr. S. Silverman: What are the other parts?

Sir J. Barlow: I was coming to that. They have been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sowerby and they are most important. I am referring to the schemes to which the Board of Trade will subsequently agree. The different sections of the industry and the Board of Trade will have to agree on something which will eventually result in an efficient industry. Otherwise, the whole scheme will be a complete flop.
The President of the Board of Trade has been rather courageous in bringing


forward this scheme at this time. Successive Presidents of the Board of Trade in this and former Governments have been most bitterly criticised by Lancashire. It may be that this is the first opportune time at which the industry has been ready for such a scheme. In any case, the industry now has an opportunity of helping itself, provided that it agrees to reasonable schemes for each of the seven or eight parts of the industry.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that far more discipline was required than appears in the Bill. There may be some discipline in the schemes out forward. We on this side do not like too much discipline, because it savours too much of planning and we dislike that. We agree that money must not be wasted, and I and other people have said time and again that if this scheme does not result in an efficient economic industry money will have been wasted. We have all tried to avoid that.
It has been suggested that there might be heavy unemployment. That aspect has been over-emphasised. In many parts of Lancashire there are vacancies in the textile industry. There may be cases of hardship resulting from the Bill, and I would be the first to say that we ought to meet those in a reasonable way. We do not want to create hardship, but we must take a fair view of the whole scheme. I do not believe that there will be any material hardship. The schemes that will be worked out, and are being worked out now, will meet that difficulty. At the same time, we do not want money wasted in any direction in these schemes.
I welcome the Bill as giving the industry a chance to help itself with Government backing. I dislike the idea of a Government pouring money into an industry in difficulty, but there are cases when it is right and proper that it should happen. This is one of those cases, due largely to our responsibilities in our Commonwealth policy in this country. It is more important to uphold our Commonwealth policies as a whole and spend a few million pounds than it is to let down the Commonwealth.
Having said that it is admirable that the President of the Board of Trade has introduced the Bill and that I am very glad to see it going through with such little opposition, I was disappointed when

my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage, somewhat decisively criticised the designs and methods of salesmanship in Lancashire. That has been a common criticism by some people for a long time, but it has been overdone. Many of the more up-to-date and modern firms have admirable designs. They search the world for the best designs. They have some of the best salesmanship in the world and if my right hon. Friend gives me the opportunity I shall be delighted to try to prove those facts to him. What my right hon. Friend said in criticism of those two aspects may be true in some cases, but as a whole it is far less true today than it was twenty years ago; indeed, it is substantially untrue today.
One question that the President of the Board of Trade has not fully answered to my satisfaction is how these payments will be affected by taxation. When he made his statement on 23rd April I asked him what the position would be. Obviously, it was too soon then for him to give a categorical reply, but he said that the matter was being looked into. Before any of these schemes are being put forward, in many cases the one all-important factor will be how these payments will be affected by taxation. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us a categorical answer tonight. If he does not do so, the trade will be disappointed.
This Bill is only a beginning, but it is a good beginning, and I and my hon. Friends on this side on the back benches welcome it as giving a great chance to Lancashire, and we wish to thank the President of the Board of Trade.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) said that the Bill was welcomed by the back benchers on that side of the House. At the moment there are four back benchers on that side. One hon. Member is conspicuously asleep. Two hon. Members have spoken, one of whom backed the Bill with faint praise, and the other was the hon. Member himself. A fourth hon. Member is waiting to speak and we shall see the measure of his enthusiasm if he catches the eye of the Chair.
The Bill is capitalism's confession of failure and breakdown. Here is an industry which confesses that it cannot pay its way in the world, that it cannot


maintain itself, that it cannot look after after its casualties, that it cannot re-equip itself to compete with other people, that it cannot compete with its Far Eastern competitors because of their low standard of living, and that it cannot compete with its Western competitors because of their high standard of living. It is after a century and a half of great opportunity, during the majority of which time it had a virtual world monopoly in this trade, that this situation has arisen. One can only imagine what right hon. and hon. Members on the other side would have to say about a nationalised industry that had put itself in that position.
Having confessed itself bankrupt and defeated, the industry now comes to the State and says, "Give us money" and the State does. It is given money by the State under a Government which, like the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich, rejects planning, rejects control, and believes in discipline only when it is at the giving end, but never when it is at the receiving end. The character of our criticism of the Bill has been expressed on Second Reading, throughout a long Committee stage, on Report and notably in the Third Reading debate so far. The Bill is misconceived. It is too little and too late.
It is misconceived because it deals with only one aspect of the malaise which affects the whole area; because it deals with it by giving money without retaining any control, and because it deprives itself of any capacity for seeing that any of its measures will take account of the social necessities which alone provide the justification for the expenditure of public money.
It is too little because no one can conceive that this amount of money, spent in this kind of way, is really going to put the industry in a position, three years hence, to compete with all the forces which have driven it to its present condition—and it is too late because it endeavours to deal with the situation when it is almost past recovery.
Mention has been made, especially by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), of mistakes made between 1945 and 1951. What mistakes were they? He said that we ought not to have been building up the industry in those five or six years.

Mr. Shepherd: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that it was unfortunate that in the years 1945–51 there was such a tremendous demand for Lancashire textiles, almost irrespective of cost. Secondly, it was unfortunate that we succeeded in recruiting so much labour. Had we been less successful we might have been driven to improving the mechanical set-up in the industry more than we did.

Mr. Silverman: I thought that that was what I said. It is no use saying that something is unfortunate unless one means that it should not have happened. Does the hon. Member mean that it should not have happened, and that the Labour Government were wrong in doing what they did between 1945 and 1951? Never mind about the unfortunate situation for the cotton industry; we know what an unfortunate situation the whole country was in during that period. The hon. Member ought not to use a word like "unfortunate" in such a vague way. I say that he means it ought not to have happened, and I ask him now to say whether it should have happened or not.

Mr. Shepherd: I will try to enlighten the hon. Member. When I said that it was unfortunate I meant that if an industry has things very easy it is likely to take things rather easier in its forward-looking attitude towards development than would otherwise be the case. The trouble was that between 1945 and 1951 Lancashire had it too easy.

Mr. Silverman: It is now 8.31 p.m., and I do not think I can pursue the argument with the hon. Member in this way much further, but I still say that he has not discharged the onus that rests upon him of saying whether the Labour Government were right or wrong. I say that we were abundantly right. We could not have achieved any success unless we had gone to Lancashire at that time and joined the production committees. We could not have done it unless employers, trade unionists, and politicians on both sides had not joined these committees and told the people to come back into the industry.
It is no good saying now, ten years later, that it was unfortunate. We had to do it because, as Lord Woolton told us from the "Business" Cabinet before


the General Election, we were then, at the end of the war, a bankrupt country. We had no export trade. The first thing we had to do was to build up our export trade as quickly as we could, in any way we could, in order to provide ourselves with some foreign currency with which to get the rest of our industry going. Lancashire and the cotton industry bore the whole burden of that effort for three years after the war, and the hon. Member now tells us how unfortunate it was.
Lancashire was then carrying the burden of the whole country, and we undertook moral obligations to the workers in the industry in what we then did. We have never fulfilled those obligations and we never can fulfil them. The Bill is a denial of those obligations. We encouraged people to bring back their youngsters into the mills—people who had said that they would never go back to the mills or allow their children to suffer the privations and insecurity which they themselves had suffered, if they could prevent it.
Furthermore, at that time other people were having it a lot easier than was the cotton industry. There was a demand for light industry all over the country. If Lancashire people had resisted the Government's appeal to them to go back into the cotton industry and rescue the country from the bankruptcy in which the war and twenty years of Conservative Government had left it—[Interruption.] It was bankrupt in 1945, was it not? The former right hon. Member for Epsom said it was, and so did the then Minister of Reconstruction, Lord Woolton. We all knew it, and when we went into Lancashire with those industries both sides of the House joined in making these appeals. If that had not been done, Lancashire could have diversified its industries between 1945 and 1951 as easily as Birmingham or the south. One of the main defects of the Bill is that it does nothing to diversify industry in the cotton areas while it is contracting the cotton industry.
What happened from 1951 onwards? There has been much airy talk about Commonwealth obligations. India and Pakistan have been mentioned. However, the principal problem which has accentuated and accelerated the decline

in the cotton industry over the past seven or eight years is not India and Pakistan. It is Hong Kong. Before 1951 there was no Hong Kong cotton industry. It was created for the first time in 1951, not for the purpose of Commonwealth development, but for partly philanthropic and partly political reasons connected with refugees from China. Between 1951 and 1958 the Hong Kong cotton industry grew very rapidly. By 1957 cotton provided about 60 or 70—I am not sure that it was not 80—per cent. of all exports from Hong Kong. Those textile exports from Hong Kong provided 20 per cent. of all the cotton imports into this country in seven years.
I ask hon. Members to read in the Government's White Paper what was happening to the cotton industry in Lancashire during those seven years. Four hundred and fifty mills closed in those seven years. This was not the natural growth of a Commonwealth industry. It was an artificially created textile industry in Hong Kong, largely subsidised by the Government. We were subsidising Hong Kong for the purpose of building up the textile industry when we were declining to give any help to Lancashire, either in competing with it or in finding something else to do.
During all those years we were appealing to the Government, the President of the Board of Trade and all his predecessors. We asked them what they would do about this competition; what they would do about the cotton industry; had they any plan and why did they not make up their minds what the future of the industry was, arrange for it to have sufficient capacity to deal with that and provide Lancashire with other industries to take the place of the part of the cotton industry taken away? We were met with stalling and evasive answers week after week, month after month, year after year for seven years.
Now we have the scheme. Whose scheme is it and why do we have it now? There are two reasons for having it now. The first is that the Yarn Spinners' Agreement has been declared illegal. If it had not been declared illegal, we should not have had the Bill. The second reason is that a General Election is coming in a few months' time and the Government cannot afford to leave Lancashire to say


that it has been thrown overboard altogether by them. Therefore, the Government come along with a scheme and talk cheerfully, airily and quietly about how wonderful everything will be in three years hence.
This is a bad Bill. It does not face the problem. The Government do not picture what the social necessities of the case are and try to devise an attractive plan to deal with them. The Government do not like plans. They do not like compulsion. They do not like to know where they are going, or what they ate doing, or why. But they have no right whatever to legislate for an industry, and still less to provide that industry with millions of money, unless they do know exactly what they are doing, and where they are going, and why—and keeping control of the expenditure.
If the Government believe in private enterprise and say that neither Government nor State has any interest in the matter, or any right in the matter, they should keep out of it and leave the industry to make the best of the mess it has made, But the Government dare not do that. We all know now that this kind of looking the other way and washing one's hands of the business will not do. Some kind of Government interference there must be. Some kind of Government assistance there must be. Some kind of Government—I hesitate to say control or plan, but some sort of Government scheme there must be.
In those circumstances, how do the Government act? They provide the industry with money with which the better off or the more hopeful can buy out their less optimistic competitors. They provide a scheme whereby, without their taking any share or interest or control in it, money can be provided for these people, who have earned hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds in the last twenty or thirty years, to reequip their industry. But there is nothing whatever for those more public-spirited elements of the industry who have re-equipped themselves already—

Mr. Holt: They pay the levy.

Mr. Silverman: They pay the levy, yes, and the body of taxpayers provides the rest.
Is this really a satisfactory way to deal with what is rapidly becoming a national catastrophe of the first water? We begged the Government during all those years to give us the advantages of the Development of Industry Act. It took us years to persuade the Government to make this a Development Area at all, and after six or seven years they had not lifted a little finger to do anything about it.
When they introduced the 1958 Measure, we begged and prayed of them to make this an area that could profit by it—to the extent that anybody could profit from so futile and puny a piece of legislation. They resisted that. We had to bring the mayors in their chains of office, and thousands of workers to parade in the Lobbies, and in the streets of London, and we got a negative reply from the Government all the time.
Then we get a Measure of this kind; a Measure that does not even begin to deal with any of the admitted evils whose existence alone justifies Government interference. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that Lancashire people will be deceived by this Bill, he has a rude shock coming to him.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I have aways approached the Third Reading stage of any Measure in the belief that there cannot really be very much more to say—or perhaps I should qualify that by saying not very much more that is new to say. Invariably, I find myself wrong, and I have made the same mistake this evening. After a full Second Reading debate, and after careful consideration of the Measure in Committee and on Report, one could be forgiven, perhaps, for assuming that there was not much more ground to rake over, but I have learned, once again that that assessment of the position at this stage is wrong. We have had powerful speeches from both sides in this Third Reading debate.
Knowing, as I hope I do, my own limitations, I shall confine myself to a few observations. I shall not seek to go over the ground which has been covered by hon. Members who have spoken so far, either at this stage or earlier. I will acid, too, if I dare, that more particularly might one expect there to be little new to say on the Third


Reading of an enabling Bill. We have been reminded throughout our discussions that this is an enabling Bill, and I hesitate to use the word again.
Three or four months ago, before the idea of this reorganisation scheme had been mooted, those of us representing Lancashire constituencies faced, as we had faced for several years, a very difficult situation for the people we represent. I believe that we had made some impression upon right hon. and hon. Members representing other parts of the country, who had been inclined, over the years, to take the view that Lancashire's troubles were the fault of Lancashire, or, more specifically, that the troubles in the cotton industry were due to shortcomings in the cotton industry. I think that we had, by the turn of the year, convinced many of those who were very critical of the cotton industry that their criticisms were probably not well founded.
Then came this scheme and the Bill. We have heard from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) severe criticism of it. We have had qualified support for it from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). We have heard a fairly pungent analysis of it from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). No doubt there are other hon. Members who would criticise it, as economic theorists, if they chose to take part in the discussion. I see the Bill in a somewhat different light. I support the Bill and the schemes which are to follow.
As my right hon. Friend said on an earlier occasion, the alternatives are limited. It is the easiest thing in the world to offer purely destructive criticism. We could allow things to job along as they were. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber now would support that course, with all the social and economic evils which would inevitably follow. We could have protected the industry by quota or by tariff from the competition which was proving so damaging. I judge that neither Opposition nor Government supporters seriously contemplated that as the cure for Lancashire's troubles.
We were faced with a third possibility, that a scheme of this sort should be introduced. I have no doubt that it

could have taken a dozen different forms. The form it has taken has been to persuade, to bribe, to encourage—a variety of words could be used—the industry to reorganise itself. The assistance, encouragement or temptation has been Government help and the taxpayers' money. In my judgment, £30 million is big money. It has been scorned by one hon. Member. I am thankful for small mercies, in the sense that we have seen schemes of this kind involving somewhat less than the £30 million proposed.
Moreover, it is quite misleading to assume that this is the limit of the new money which will be spent in the industry during the next five years. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) quite rightly checked my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle when he said that the sum was £40 million, though the specific number is not known. It may be 30 or it may be 40. The point that I seek to make is that the industry will itself be contributing a substantial sum.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle have suggested that on economic grounds one may be able to shoot holes in this scheme. That may be true. On purely economic and social grounds, of course, it is not perfect. I do not imagine that the House has ever put on the Statute Book a Measure of this sort which could claim perfection on economic or social grounds. I believe that this Bill is as good a compromise as it is reasonable to expect, and that in its application through the various schemes which will come forward we shall see the industry given the opportunity, which I believe it will grasp, to be more efficient—to spin a pound of yarn for less than it is either possible to do or is being done today and to weave a yard of cloth for less money in real terms with a smaller use in real resources than is the case today.

Mr. Holt: I have listened closely to the hon. Member and I thought that at last we should hear from an hon. Member opposite, not excepting the President of the Board of Trade, what is envisaged by some of these schemes. I tried to


obtain this information from the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading, but I could not obtain anything. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as he has a personal knowledge of the spinning trade, what he expects to be the nature, for instance, of the spinning scheme and how he expects it to work out?
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures which the President of the Board of Trade gave in the White Paper. It was stated that 10 out of 25 spindles are now idle. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that merely 10 out of 25 spindles will be smashed or that more than 10 will be smashed? If the latter, what will happen to the workpeople who are now running these spindles? They will lose their employment. Are those spindles to be replaced by new and modern ones? If they are, from where will the workpeople be found to run them, because this will happen twelve months later and we hope that the work-people in the meantime will have found another job?
It is this kind of thing which I find utterly frustrating about the Bill. We have had no details about how the Government visualise these schemes. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how he visualises them?

Mr. Leavey: I shall gladly try to help the hon. Gentleman. I envisage that a proportion of the existing spinning plant will be destroyed. I do not know whether it will be 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14 of these notional spindles out of 25.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does anyone know?

Mr. Leavey: I do not think that anybody knows. Nobody can know at this moment, because it is largely in the hands of those who now own the plant to decide how much of it they believe it is expedient to scrap.
It has been said so often that I hardly dare repeat it, but this is not a matter of the Government, the Cotton Board, or anybody else selecting spinning mills and weaving sheds for closure. I believe that in the process of eliminating what has been termed dead wood we shall reestablish confidence in the industry—not confidence for a particularly rosy future, but we shall re-establish a feeling in the industry that there is a new chance, and

I believe that that is the first thing that the Bill will do. The same arguments apply to the other sections. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) did not ask me for my views about the weaving side of the industry, but no doubt his question embraced that point.
I am conscious that crystal-gazing and forecasting is as dangerous in the economic sphere as in the political sphere, but I believe that we shall see the reinvestment of money, which is to be paid by the industry and partly by the Government, in new modern plant which will be run, I hope, on a two-shift and perhaps three-shift basis.
I know that it is easy to stand here and talk about the shift system and the need in economic terms to operate a shift system. But it has serious social implications for people working regularly at night; for people sometimes working at night and sometimes on the second or the third shift. But I believe that the alternatives are even worse and I think that there are hon. Members opposite who would support me in that view. I say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West that that is how I see the thing developing. I believe that by the application and the full use of new and modern plant there may be a reduction in the cost per unit and an increase in the competitive strength of the industry, which will at least be part of what my hon. Friend wants to achieve.
I have touched on the social implications. During the Committee and Report stages of the Bill we have had some discussion on the obligations that rest on the Government, on employers, and also, I believe, on the trade unions, in that connection. What will be the impact in terms of employment? The very fact that we have recognised the absolute need to provide for compensation is an admission that we believe that there will he some people who, if they lose their job under the scheme, will find it difficult to get another.
We know that there is a high age level in the industry and that a fairly high proportion of the workers are women. There is real concern that some of them will not get new work. I would sooner face this fact than try to gloss over it. I hope that the compensation scheme will go as far as it is possible to go to meet the needs of those people.
If we adopt a "lie down and die" attitude to this scheme; if we say that it will not work because not enough money is coming from the Government; that it is unsound economically; that the social implications are more than we can face; that some other scheme ought to be devised; that for two, three or four years we should impose tariffs or quotas on foreign competition—if we proceed on those lines, which are very easy lines on which to argue, we shall arrive back at the first alternative. We shall have done nothing. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member of the House really believes that we should leave things exactly as they are.
The point has been made—and I seek to make it again—that we are now looking to the industry and those engaged in it to produce details of individual schemes. I join with hon. Members who have stressed that a heavy responsibility will rest on them. Lancashire, or the cotton industry, is "on the spot" in this respect. Schemes are to be produced and I hope that they will command general support. There will be arguments. Perhaps argument and haggling is going on at the moment about the value and amount to be paid for spindles or looms.
There have been negotiations between the trade unions and the employers on the exact terms and the details of compensation and it is right that there should be such negotiations. It is right that those negotiations should be robust. I believe it is right, when the Government are paying out a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money, that their view should he known. I hope that we shall not damage the opportunities provided for Lancashire in the Bill by condemning it before the really operative parts of many of the schemes can be made known and put into effect.
Of course, there will be difficulties. Viscount Chandos was quoted in the newspapers recently as saying that in the particular sphere to which he was referring there was what he called a lot of "me, too-ism." We must face the danger that in the application of re-organisation schemes there will be what perhaps I can call "the other fellow-ism", in which we shall find some people suggesting that it should he the other mill which should close down or the other

man who should scrap his plant, but not the person in question.
I dare say that we shall see what we see in other walks of life—a general acceptance of the theory, economic and social, except when there is disagreeable application to oneself. That is a possibility, but while we can pick holes in this scheme and the Bill, I think that, on balance, it stands the best chance of doing what everybody has been crying out should be done, namely, helping the Lancashire cotton industry. If I may borrow some words of my right hon. Friend, it is likely to succeed in making the Lancashire cotton industry more confident, more compact and more competitive, and with these very sound aims in mind I commend the Bill to the House.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Thornton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has returned to the Chamber, because I want to join issue with him on one or two of the comments he made during the course of his interesting and, as usual, very lucid speech.
I submit, from a long experience of the cotton textile trade union movement—and I am still the vice-chairman of the largest cotton textile trade union—that in recent years I have known of no single case in which a union has refused to operate double-shift working—and, in some cases, they are operating treble-shift working—where new plant has been installed and the working conditions were reasonable for shift operation. There are, of course, many cases on record in which the unions, quite rightly, in my opinion, have refused permission for shift working in old mills, which, without air conditioning, are virtually industrial slums by modern standards.

Mr. Shepherd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not suggest—at least I hope I did not create the impression—that the trade unions had opposed shift working. What I said was that the unions demanded about 20 per cent. for redevelopment, and something like 20 per cent. premium for double-shift working, and by the time one has paid these premiums, plus the amortisation of the plant, the total end cost is almost as high as if one was working old machines one shift a day.

Mr. Thornton: As I understood it, and I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I did not hear him make that point, though he did refer to restrictive practices. I will, however, take up the point he has made. It is quite true that the unions insist upon a 20 per cent. premium for double-shift working, but the purpose of that is merely to give to the worker a full week's wage.
When one realises from Ministry of Labour earnings statistics that the average wages of men in the cotton textile industry are 30s. a week lower than the average for the whole of British manufacturing industry, and that the average earnings of women are just about equal to the average in all manufacturing industry, then, by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, if less than a 20 per cent. premium were paid the gap between the weekly earnings of cotton operatives and those in the rest of British industry would be widened. It is not reasonable that anything less than that should be accepted, because if a new industry were to go into the cotton area and establish a modern plant operating a shift system, the wages it would have to pay would have to have regard to the weekly pay packet of the operative, entirely apart from the hours that were worked.
I suggest that the main reason why Lancashire has not re-equipped has been the lack of confidence in the future of the industry. This Bill does not go far enough. It deals only with the effect and not with the cause of Lancashire's decline. It does not deal with what is likely to cause a further contraction in the industry. As the White Paper points out in paragraphs 1 to 8 quite succinctly, the main cause of the decline in the cotton textile industry over the last 45 years has been the continuing loss of export trade.
Most of that loss was inevitable. It was due to the changing world and to industrialisation in different parts of the world, and was an inevitable decline. Part of that loss of export trade could have been avoided, but it was due, no doubt, to the fact that under those contracting conditions, where confidence was never strong—it cannot be in a contracting industry—our industry lost export trade, due to its being uncompetitive even with Western European producers.
I think it is fairly true to say that in each decade since 1914 the exports of the Lancashire cotton industry have been halved, and since the post-war peak of 1951 our exports have been halved again, in this last decade. This trend may continue during the next ten years. Seeing that exports are now only 400 million yards of cotton textile fabrics against 7,000 million in 1914, the halving during the next ten years of our present level of exports will be about 200 million, spread over ten years. That would mean an average decline of about 20 million yards a year, or roughly 1 per cent. of Lancashire's present level of production.
A further decline of exports of that size is manageable, and is, indeed, ascertainable, and that is not the reason for the lack of confidence in the future of the industry now. It has, I believe, been true in years gone by that the lack of confidence which has always been there has been due to the contraction of the industry based upon the lack of export trade.
We come now to the second stage of this decline which, as has been said earlier, has been due to the increase in the level of imports, chiefly from Asian Commonwealth countries. These two factors in the last six or seven years have overlapped and have been responsible, as I said in the Second Reading debate, for the most rapid rate of contraction in the history of the industry.
The importance of the impact on our industry of these Asian exports, I say quite frankly, has often been exaggerated from Lancashire quarters. They have an important adverse effect, I agree, but the impact of these Asian imports has been often exaggerated from Lancashire quarters. If the average level of imports in the period 1949–52 is compared with the average level of exports from Lancashire during those years and the years up to 1958, one finds that for every two yards of production lost in Lancashire due to increased Asian imports, five yards have been lost due to the continued loss of export trade.
I believe that that is a fair statement of the position in the last seven or eight years, but in 1958–59 the position is very different. The whole balance of confidence rests upon the uncertainty which the future has to offer if these imports


come in again, uncontrolled and unrestricted, because it is not 400 million yards of exports that are at stake—that problem is ascertainable and manageable—but the hoped for demand for 2,000 million yards of home production as the maximum further decline that can take place. I hope that I have made the point that there has been a shift in the reason for lack of confidence in the future.
After the voluntary agreement lapses, if it does, in two years' time, these imports could suddenly increase, as they have done, by 100 million yards in one year, and that would be equivalent to 5 per cent. or more of our present level of production. This is an unpredictable and unmanageable position and it is not surprising that with this threat to the industry confidence remains considerably shaken.
I should like to quote from what I think is an authoritative source, namely, Mr. O. L. Jacks, the chairman of Ashton Brothers & Company of Hyde, as reported in the Manchester Guardian on 11th March this year. Ashton Brothers has completely re-equipped. It has the most up-to-date machinery in every department of production. It has been my privilege to see cotton textile mills in many countries in Europe and in Asia, but I do not think that there is anywhere a more efficient firm than Ashton Brothers, and there are mills in Lancashire which are equally efficient and well-equipped.
Mr. Jack says:
If any misconception exists that Lancashire is likely to re-equip mills in an effort to produce at Asiatic prices it can be categorically stated that the most modern equipment available could not neutralise the disparity between European and Oriental wages after making normal capital recovery charges.
I believe that is a true statement of the situation and that our most efficient firms, completely re-equipped and working on a shift basis, cannot compete with Asiatic prices because of the difference in wages.
Unless this basic problem of Asian imports is grappled with, and we must agree that the Bill does not attempt to grapple with it, confidence will not be restored, large-scale re-equipment will not take place, and in several years' time

there is the danger that the same problem of excess capacity will re-emerge and £30 million or more will have gone down the drain.
The clear trend of the last fifteen years has been that Asia will produce a larger proportion of the world's textiles and that Europe and North America will produce a smaller proportion. I am not one of those who believe that Asian imports should be excluded or cut back. We in the Western world have to make our contribution to industrialisation in the East, and we must assist the people there to raise their living standards. There is a distinct danger, however, that some of the Asian countries, including Hong Kong, India and Pakistan, will over-expand their textile productive capacity, if they have not already done so, and there are definite lessons to be learned from a study of the textile industries of the world over this century.
The trend is quite clear. Whilst the production of cotton textiles continues to expand, roughly, by 1 per cent. per year, in line with the growth of world population, the world trade in cotton textiles continues to decline. Japan, in ignoring the advice given by the Anglo-American Textile Mission of 1950, of which I had the honour to be a member, re-expanded her textile capacity to 10 million spindles. In consequence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) will confirm, 2½ million spindles in Japan are sealed because the Japanese cannot sell their capacity. There is the danger that Hong Kong, Pakistan and India will do the same thing, because the expectation of an expanding world market in cotton textiles will not be realised. As demand expands, new industries are created in the markets that give the biggest offtake.
I submit that there is need for a gradual and orderly adjustment, as is happening in Western Europe and in North America, both of which are tending to take larger quantities of Asian cotton textile goods, but only very gradually. For example, the United States of America limits the imports of Japanese cotton textiles to a figure equal to only 1½ per cent. of American domestic production.

Mr. Alan Green: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? I am not dissenting from his argument. I think he is right in saying that we must govern the rate at which change takes place, so that it is tolerable to those affected. At the same time, I hope he will not overlook the fact that we have a different relationship with Hong Kong and India from that of America with Japan. It is more difficult for us to govern the rate of change of our relatives, so to speak, in Asia than it is for those who are outside the Commonwealth. It is a real problem, and we must not confuse the two.

Mr. Thornton: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not confusing the two. I am attempting to show that this trend in the acceptance of Asian manufactured goods is a gradual movement in a II the rest of the Western world, except in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the relationship of Japan with America was in many respects something of a colonial relationship. I want to emphasise the trend that is taking place. It should be gradual and one in which orderly adjustments can take place. Unless this is done in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the present Bill and the giving of £30 million of public money, confidence will not be re-established in Lancashire because of the threat that the door can be re-opened at any moment.
The White Paper suggests that Lancashire's future lies in moving into new types of goods and meeting new markets. That is good so far as it goes. This, however, is a continuing process in all countries and in all industries. Hong Kong and India are moving into higher quality goods and they will be confronting us with a further challenge in qualities and ranges of fabrics which they have not yet tackled.
There needs to be, as I see it, an orderly reduction of productive capacity and a residual efficiency in the plant and the mills that remain. These are important objectives. The Bill aims at these objectives, but I very much question whether they will be attained. It is very doubtful in my opinion. The Bill gives only negative types of control. There is no guarantee at all in the Bill that the most obsolete mills will close. In fact, obsolete mills can remain running. I

think that some of them will, and that some of the relatively efficient and medium-range mills will close.
Between the wars, these objectives of orderly reduction and residual efficiency were not achieved. There is the same danger now that we shall have a large-scale scrapping of machinery and of mills with little or inadequate re-equipment. Again, there is this lack of confidence which itself will determine the degree of re-equipment that takes place.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) on Second Reading made some critical references to the plan for cotton. That plan did at least attempt to face up to some of the several problems with which the Bill does not cope—basic problems which ought to be tackled.
There is one basic problem at the beginning of the industry's processes and that is the problem of raw cotton supplies and the hazards which now confront the spinners in their purchases of raw cotton. I do not think that the best supporters of free enterprise on the benches opposite can say that the Liverpool Cotton Market has been a great success. It is well known that even those employers who supported the winding-up of the Raw Cotton Commission now bitterly regret it. Many of them in recent years have spent sleepless nights over the risks that they have been running on a falling market and the very big losses that have often resulted.
Another important problem which must be tackled if confidence is to be restored is, at the end of the process, that of merchanting and marketing. Unless this is tackled adequately and effectively, I visualise in the future no great confidence in our industry. Paragraph 11 of the White Paper says:
The Government, however, believe that action can be taken to establish a compact, up-to-date and efficient industry able to take full advantage of changes in demand and fashion at home and abroad.
I doubt very much whether this will be achieved as the result of the Bill, I doubt very much whether there will be the necessary degree of re-equipment, and I doubt whether our merchanting organisation is effective enough as at present organised to give those results.
There is no single, easy solution for the problems of our industry, for it has


many problems. The Bill poses one, but in the opinion of many on both sides of the industry the Bill is motivated as much by political and electoral expediency as by a desire resolutely to solve the industry's problems. Even here the Government may have miscalculated, because Mr. Alec E. Higham, chairman of Highams Limited, was reported in the Evening News on 9th June as saying:
I must say that in many respects the Government's textile scheme savours much more of a memorial service than a revival meeting.
The speeches on both sides of the House in this debate have savoured more of a memorial service than of a revival meeting.
As I said on Second Reading, the best that can be said of the range of debate is that we have had a tepid enthusiasm from the Government benches while from the Opposition benches we have had a rather cautious pessimism. In spite of that, and notwithstanding my own criticisms and misgivings, I hope that the Bill will contribute more than I dare expect to easing and resolving the problems of the hard-pressed textile areas of Lancashire. I have been associated with the industry all my life and I have a rather sentimental attachment to its constitution, its work, its people and all that is associated with it. I hope that the Bill will make a contribution.
I should like to express my appreciation to the President of the Board of Trade for his unfailing courtesy and consideration and his conciliatory attitude, which has been shared by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I wish the Bill success. I do not think it is the answer to our problems. In so far as it makes a contribution, it will be only a small one. Unless the Measure is followed up far more resolutely, and unless there is a real determination to deal with the problem of Asian imports—it is not that I am unsympathetic to the needs of those in other countries, but this is a problem which needs careful consideration and gradual adjustment to avoid catastrophic rates of contraction—I very much fear that in five, six or seven years' time we shall hear another story in this House of the need to cut out dead wood and shall be taking part in another major contraction of what was once Britain's greatest industry.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Although I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) in recommending the House to vote against the Third Reading, I think that we were right not to give this Measure a perfunctory Third Reading. We have finished all the proceedings on the Bill in moderately quick time and although it is far from perfect or even adequate, as has been made abundantly clear in speeches by my hon. Friends today, and although it is a melancholy comment on the failure of the Government's policy towards Lancashire over the last five years, it remains better than nothing. The mistakes are now largely irrevocable and the Bill is far from being what it might have been—a revival of the cotton industry and the provision of new employment in Lancashire.
However, I agree with the final sentences of the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) that we can now express the hope that the Cotton Board and the industry will make the best possible use of this rather meagre and rather belated assistance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth that at times we have had an almost unusually conciliatory attitude from both the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade in the course of these proceedings. Nevertheless, before we part with the Bill I think that Parliament and the public should mark clearly what we are doing and the precedent which we are creating.
We are empowering the Government to pay out as a free gift about £30 million—I hope that it will not be £40 million—of public money to persuade private firms to scrap redundant plant and to install new plant. We are asked to do that, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) rightly said, without any guarantee that we will get greater efficiency or full employment in the areas concerned. Whatever this is, it is certainly not private enterprise, or Tory freedom, or keeping the Goverment out of business.
In fact, it is State aid to private firms which are assumed in the Bill not to have the resources or the initiative to help themselves. This aid is given as a free gift without any control or participation by the State or by the public in


return. The trouble is that this is neither laissez-faire nor planning, which, we have been told again today, the party opposite does not like. The Government admit that laissez-faire in this case would have been quite unworkable, but they do not have the courage or intelligence to introduce a plan in which the re-equipment of the cotton industry and the development of new industries in Lancashire could have gone side by side, so as both to improve efficiency and to give us full employment over the whole area. To that extent, this is the loss of a considerable opportunity.
Some hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who was also very eloquent this afternoon, have expressed grave doubts about the grant of public money as a free gift to private interests. We are now seeing—and it is a remarkable commentary on the Bill—all sorts of private industries queuing up and asking for State aid—steel, shipbuilding, shipping, aircraft and many others as well as cotton. They all turned up cap in hand at the moment when the Institute of Directors was telling us all that any form of financial investment by the State in industry is ruinous and dangerous to the industry in which the investment is made.
I do not believe that the use of public money to assist the cotton industry, particularly after the damage done by Government policies over recent years, is necessarily wrong in itself, but I think that we should have greater safeguards in return for the use of these public funds. At this stage I will mention only two. First, I ask the President of the Board of Trade again—and I emphasise this because the rules of order made it a little difficult to discuss it during the Committee stage—why should public money supplied to these firms for re-equipment be given as a free gift and not as a loan or in return for issues of shares or securities? Why should the Government lend £100,000 to a firm to install new machinery on the assumption that greater efficiency and profitability will result? I cannot understand why there should not be some form of participation by which, if the situation is improved and higher profits are earned, some of those profits would accrue to the taxpayer who has lent the money.
In all these matters State investment may well be a good principle but State subsidy is an extremely dubious one. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who at one point compared this arrangement with D.A.T.A.C. Where State financial aid is given to firms in Development Areas under D.A.T.A.C. that help is given as a loan. A rate of interest has to be paid and the firm is under an obligation to pay the money back. I think that the Minister will agree that there have been no cases of a free grant under D.A.T.A.C. That is a better bargain for the taxpayer, and I suspect that in many cases better use would be made of the money because the firm would know that it was under a financial obligation to return it.
The other aspect of the financial operation that we have not touched on is the payment of compensation for scrapping the machinery. What will happen to the scrapped machinery? Is the scrap value of it to accrue to the firm in addition to the compensation, or is that to he returned to the Exchequer to save at least some of the public money? We ought to know what will happen to the machinery that is scrapped.
The other failure of the Bill is the absence of any real scheme by which the distribution of industry activities of the Board of Trade in this area could have been coupled with this reorganisation of the cotton industry. If, as we repeatedly urged, the President of the Board of Trade had been willing to bring the Cotton Board in to select the individual mills on the one hand, and if, simultaneously with this operation, he had been willing to schedule the whole of these areas under the Distribution of Industry Act on the other, we should have had a real plan, the two parts of which would have interlocked with one another. Although the Minister has not been willing to put anything into the Bill to that effect, I hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will do all they can to see that such efforts as the Board of Trade is making to bring new industries into these areas are in some way integrated with the changes in the cotton industry that we will have under this Bill.
Whatever doubts we have about the merits of the Bill. I think that we can


all now wish Lord Rochdale and those responsible every success in using even the rather inadequate means that we are putting in their hands. After all, Lancashire has had a good many shocks in the last twenty years, what with the depression of the thirties, the drastic concentration during the war—which was an upheaval for Lancashire but of enormous value to the war effort at that time—and then the very rapid expansion of exports after the war and, incidentally, the employment of many overseas workers—something which the hon. Member for Cheadle failed to mention. There was also the depression of 1952 and the imposition of a quota on Asiatic imports afterwards.
As for the comment of the hon. Member for Cheadle about the years 1945–51, it may be that the rapid expansion left some problems, but I am quite convinced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said, that it was then absolutely right to organise and accelerate that expansion. If we could get those exports from the cotton industry in those years it was right to do so. The war left many problems, but there is no doubt that it was right to fight the war, and the same thing can be said about the expansion of the cotton industry in the years immediately following.
As to present and recent imports from Asia, I say nothing about the question of quotas but I have never been able to understand the right hon. Gentleman's opposition, as a matter of principle, to any form of tariff on textile imports from the Commonwealth. If we examine the tariff schedules we see that we impose tariffs on many other Commonwealth imports, including other textiles, such as rayon. I do not think that the Minister can adduce a valid argument for not at least putting cotton in the same class as textiles, such as rayon, which bear a tariff even if they come from Commonwealth sources.
I was a little inclined to feel that the Minister was rather gay in quoting some of the much better employment figures. We are all glad to hear about them, but I think that he may be taking an unduly optimistic short-term view of the industry. We must remember two things: first, that the recent summer weather has had a good deal to do with the present recovery

and, secondly, and more important—as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth pointed out—that the present arrangement with Hong Kong is a temporary one and may have disappeared in three years' time, when the present troubles may re-appear. We must not be too complacent.
Despite all that, however, there is no basic reason why, with the re-equipment of the cotton industry and a real influx of new industries into these areas, Lancashire should not soon be as expansionist and as fully employed as are the Midlands or the London area.
I want to ask the Minister one question about the Orders to implement the reorganisation schemes, which are still to come before the House. They will presumably be presented to us between now and the summer Recess. The House should have plenty of time to consider those Orders, and not have them rushed through with insufficient time for consideration. Hon. Members on this side of the House would have liked the Bill to be a very much bigger step towards the transformation we want to see in Lancashire—towards greater efficiency and full employment—but, such as it is, for the sake of the people of Lancashire we wish it at least a speedy and a thorough trial.

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: I wish to thank the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for his closing words. The Government are grateful, because there is no doubt that this is a great experiment on which we are embarking and the good will of both sides of the House is an important factor in giving this experiment a chance to succeed.
I will deal with one or two special points which the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised and then try to deal with the main criticism which has been made against the Bill. Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's last point about the Orders for reorganisation, I appreciate that the timetable is very short, but we are up against it. We will do our very best to lay the spinning, doubling and weaving reorganisation schemes before the House shortly before the middle of July, which will give us a chance to consider them. I hope that that will be possible.
I feel that the good will expressed towards this experiment means that the Government can count on the co-operation of the House in trying to approve these Orders before we go away for the Summer Recess. Otherwise, as I said the other day, it means a delay until about November. During that time some of the good will which has been generated, and which is carrying forward these schemes today, may evaporate. I am not referring to a General Election. I see hon. Members smiling. A General Election is no doubt in their minds. I am thinking of nothing but cotton. Therefore, I will do my best to bring these Orders forward in good time, but we shall need the co-operation of the House to put them through before we rise for the Summer Recess.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked what will happen to the machinery which is to be scrapped. I am told that a spindle, for example, will be worth about 5s. scrap value at the maximum. That money will acrue to the mill owner. In fixing the compensation terms, we are trying to screw down the maximum amount, and the fact that there will be just that very small realisation from the scrap merchant will be taken into consideration by the Cotton Board when proposing the terms for compensation.
I hope that I may trouble the House with two small points, because they are important to those working out the reorganisation schemes. The first relates to the industry's share of the costs of compensation for the elimination of excess capacity. As the House knows, that is to be raised by a levy upon all firms in the industry. Naturally, these people desire that the levy payments be spread over a certain period, perhaps two or three years. Therefore, if the money is to be paid out in a shorter time than that, it is necessary to borrow in order to make the payments at the correct time. The Cotton Board is, therefore, proposing to borrow from the banks the necessary funds to meet the industry's contribution.
I understand that there will be no difficulty in making the necessary arrangements with the banks, and the Government do not propose to lend to the Cotton Board or to give guarantees on its borrowings from the banks. But in the

very unlikely event of the Cotton Board finding itself in a situation where there was a possibility of loss to the banks arising in respect of their loans the Government would be prepared to consider with the Cotton Board how best any such obligations could be met. I do not think that it will arise, but it is part of the efficient working out of this scheme that the Cotton Board should be in a position to borrow before the moneys from the levy come in.
The second point is that I moved an Amendment—

Mr. Jay: I think that we should be quite clear on the point just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that he means that the Government might conceivably lend to the Cotton Board to cover the gap—not that they contemplate a further free payment?

Sir D. Eccles: No, I do not mean any further free payment. It is simply a question of acting in the very unlikely event of difficulty as between the Cotton Board and the banks. After all, one cannot tell what might be the country's monetary situation in a few years' time. If there should be any difficulty, I think that it is right to have told the Cotton Board in advance that since these levies are part and parcel of the whole scheme we will be prepared to talk with the Board and see what should be done.
The second point is that the House was good enough to give us an Amendment which ante-dated the work now being done by the Board's special committee. One of the reasons for asking for that power was that I wanted to appoint, as soon as possible, the two new independent members to the Cotton Board. I should like to tell the House that I have invited—and I am glad to say that they have accepted—Mr. Edwin Hall, of the National Union of Mineworkers, who is a member of the General Council of the T.U.C., and Mr. Cuthbert Robinson, of Messrs. Thomas Robinson, which is a leading firm of woodworking machine makers. I believe that these two gentlemen will make a great contribution to the Cotton Board in the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.
I was very much struck by speeches made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and Heywood and


Royton (Mr. Leavey) and others, because, in a way, they brought out the essence of the difficulty. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the Bill is badly timed, that it will not do any good, and that it will not succeed because the conjuncture of events and past history makes it really impossible, in this day and age, for a great reorganisation scheme of this kind to succeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) said that he thought that this was possibly the first time that such an idea of an industry-wide reorganisation could succeed.
That reminds me very much of the origins of the Bill. I, in a very modest relationship with the cotton industry as long ago as when I was trying to get together the decorations for the Coronation, took a fairly poor view of some parts of the Lancashire industry. I did not think much more about it until it fell to me to go to the Board of Trade. When I got to the Board of Trade I found that the cotton industry—which is, after all, of immense importance to our economy—was, if I may say so, in rather low spirits.
At the same time, going to textile exhibitions, which I had not done for a year or two, it seemed to me that the quality of the best British cottons at the exhibitions was rising. I asked myself, "Is it not possible that with all this increase in taste, through the secondary schools and in other ways, there may be a new age opening for the cotton industry?"
Then, of course, a series of events occurred, the conjuncture of which must, I think, be accepted by the House as very extraordinary. First, there is the question, and it has been touched on by many hon. Members, of our Commonwealth policy of duty-free imports. By sticking to that policy—I am sure it is right that we should—we demonstrate our faith in the Commonwealth association of nations in different stages of economic maturity. We show that the developed country and the underdeveloped country understand the obligations between the two and prefer trade to aid.
I assure hon. Members that, if we did not take this step, it would be almost certain that other members of the Commonwealth would erect between

each other barriers higher than they have now and that the example to the rest of the Western world of the United Kingdom going back on generous treatment to the developing countries of the Commonwealth would be a severe, possibly a fatal, blow to the economic association of our great family. That was one thing which suddenly loomed up.
After that came the Free Trade Area negotiations. One almost forgets when they started; it must have been nearly two years ago. Directly the Free Trade Area negotiations started, I saw that this development was very important for the British textile industry. I went to Manchester at that time, two years ago. We had a great meeting of all the cotton employers, who very kindly came to hear about the very beginnings of the Free Trade Area idea.
I was abused up hill and down dale by the older members of the cotton industry. They said that they could not stand this competition, that free trade with Europe was a great mistake, and that it would be very bad for their businesses. After the meeting, four or five of the younger managers, none of them, I would say, more than 35 years of age, came to me and said, Give us a chance. Let us have free trade with Europe, and we shall do better than we have ever done before. Do not listen to the older gentlemen here. We will put the industry on the map".
If I may quote just one and a half lines from Shakespeare's Richard 11, I felt then that
… even through the hollow eyes of death I spy life peering".
It seemed to me that I saw the emergence of a new kind of manager. From that time onwards, it became clear, in a most interesting manner, that in the cotton industry there was a division of opinion about whether it was a good thing to have a Free Trade Area in Europe or not and, gradually, those who were in favour of the Free Trade Area increased as a proportion among those concerned. That was the second thing which occurred.
The third factor, which has been mentioned by hon. Members, was, of course, the judgment of the Restrictive Practices Court. I do not think that it took very much prescience to see that that case was likely to be decided against the


Yarn Prices Agreement. Nor did it take particular intelligence to realise that, if that judgment was given, it would create a new urge towards rationalisation in that part of the industry.
Fourthly, as I think the House will agree, the increase in incomes in the richer nations of the world was opening up markets for quality textiles in a very interesting manner.
Putting all those things together, the fact that we had our Commonwealth policy, that we were expecting a Free Trade Area, that the Restrictive Practices Court was likely to pronounce against the Yarn Prices Agreement, and that, in general, the demand for higher quality cotton fabrics was increasing, there was a situation being created in which, if one could not then induce the Lancashire industry to reorganise, there never would, it seemed to me, be a chance. If I may ask a rhetorical question: what sort of people are they in Lancashire? I reckon that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is not a bad sample. They are extremely individualistic.

Mr. Rhodes: I thought that I was a bit more than a sample, but, then, I am not from Lancashire at all. I am a Yorkshireman.

Sir D. Eccles: I really knew that the hon. Gentleman came from Yorkshire. The characteristic of these people, when one tried to get them together at first, was their extreme individuality. Not only are they extremely individual, but, with the organisation of the industry into this curious horizontal organisation which is reflected at the moment in seven or eight sections, and which, I hope, before long will lead to combinations of one kind or another, it is very difficult to get them to come together and agree upon a great scheme of this kind. I thought that unless we caught this tide which was flowing for the reasons which I tried to outline to the House it might never flow again.
I therefore agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich, at least within my limited experience—I accept that it is very limited—that this is about the first time that we have ever had a chance. That is why I have driven very hard the carrying out

of the Bill and why I am grateful to the House for having accepted the Amendment which allows the work which is now going on to be regularised if the Bill becomes law. This is a chance which we should try to take, although I do not know whether we shall succeed. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle made a most valuable speech, because he pointed out that we must do more than give money—much more. There must be a willingness to co-operate on both sides of the industry which will carry this programme and the utilisation of the new machinery to success. We cannot dodge the fact that the costs on our most modern machines are not satisfactory. I shall not say who is at fault or whether the premiums for the second shift are too much or too little. It is not for me to say that. All I know is that, on an international comparison, our costs today are not satisfactory, but I believe that we should not have obtained what we have obtained from both sides of the industry if that kind of problem was not now to be solved.
I think that some hon. Members were rather sceptical whether the trade unions and employers would so quickly work out an agreed settlement of compensation for displaced workers. The trade union leaders who came to see me showed a very great realisation of the problem and a great sense of responsibility. So have the employers. It is because I believe that that is not just a flash in the pan that the people from Lancashire, having regard to all the various things which have hit them, are now prepared to make a drastic reorganisation that I feel we ought to give the Bill every possible chance to succeed.

Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a much stronger urge behind the move to agreement on compensation because in default of it the schemes for reorganisation could not receive the Minister's approval. Will there be the same urge to get the costs of production down?

Sir D. Eccles: I know that the hon. Gentleman is right to be cynical, because we who give our lives to politics become a little cynical. But in this case I am not cynical. I believe that there is in Lancashire a real desire on both sides of the industry to give this great industry a new chapter of life. That being the


Government's view, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POWER LINES, DUNGENESS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Criticism is frequently made that matters raised on Adjournment debates relate only to a particular constituency. The facts which I bring before the House tonight do indeed start in my constituency, but they may have a very much wider application. I am aware that there are certain hon. Members who are disturbed about some of these facts and may even be present tonight in the hope that they may be able to add something on similar lines.
The facts are that an inquiry was held about the possibility of having an atomic power station at Dungeness. That inquiry was held towards the end of last year. When it started a statement was made that there was a possibility that there would be transmission lines to the westward from that power station. My constituency starts a few miles away from where it is proposed to place the power station. In accordance with the proper procedure the clerk of the Battle Rural District Council, representing the area lying immediately nearest to the west of the site of the proposed power station, attended the inquiry and then for the first time he learned that there was a possibility of transmission lines being taken to the westward from Dungeness.
It so happened that he was not able to be present at the inquiry except on the first day and he was given permission to make a statement towards the end of that day. It was made quite clear by the inspector holding the inquiry that the question of transmission lines to the westward of the power station was not a subject of the inquiry and therefore any observations or representations made about those transmission lines were irrelevant to those proceedings.
The statement which the clerk to the Battle Rural District Council made at the inquiry raised two important points. The first was that it was wrong for an inquiry to be held at which the question of transmission lines to the west was not included in the terms of reference. There had, in fact, been an inquiry on an earlier occasion about transmission lines to and from that power station going through Kent, and it would, therefore, seem quite reasonable to assume that it would have been right to suppose that these other transmission lines would have been relevant to this inquiry.
It is not necessary for me to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the matter it is very difficult to persuade the people of Sussex that if there are inquiries as to the possibility of where power lines are to go in Kent, no similar principle need be applied to Sussex.
The second point made by the clerk to the Battle Rural District Council in his statement to the inquiry was this. Once it was decided where the power station was to be, one would probably know where the power was to be taken; and it followed that there would be only a small possibility of varying the route of the power lines. It would be a question of economics, and only minor deviations from the most direct route would be possible. Anyone who looks at the map will see quite clearly that there are only two possible routes which the power line could take. One is up the Rother Valley and the other up the Brede Valley. Those who know these valleys will be aware that they are very beautiful parts of England, and to put a power line in either of them without the most careful consideration is something from which I think any Ministry ought to shrink.
There has been a suggestion that it should be taken underground, or that it should go under the sea. I think that there was also a suggestion that possibly the power line should be put along the coast. This part of the coast, as anybody who knows it realises, is very beautiful. I had the privilege, only a week or two ago, of going in a Fishery Protection Vessel along this part of the coast and having a look at it from the sea. I am quite certain that the possibility of putting a power line which is visible on any part of that coast is something which would


certainly not commend itself to people who know how attractive it is.
The clerk of the rural district council made his representations, and it seemed that that was about the end of the story. So an approach was made to me. I therefore wrote to the Minister, and he replied on 5th January, when he said, among other things, that the inspectors would, no doubt, take into account, when presenting their report, the question as to where the power lines were to go. If the inspectors would "no doubt" take into consideration the position of these power lines, it seems to me quite wrong that it was not possible for representations to have been made to the inspectors before they either did or did not take into consideration the possibility of where the power lines were to go.
The other matter mentioned in this letter was that the detailed route for such a line would require a great deal of negotiations, and, of course, there would be various authorities involved, and that that would be a matter which would take some time. I say that that was an entirely irrelevant submission, because nobody would suggest that the detailed route should be worked out at the inquiry. All that the clerk of the rural district council was asking was that representations about the possibility of a power line should be made at the inquiry and as part of the inquiry, and that the details should be worked out later and the wayleaves and the exact positions of the power lines could be considered subsequently.
That did not seem to me to be a very satisfactory reply, so I wrote to the Minister again. In his next letter of 9th February, he said, among other things, that even if such representations had been made, he did not think that they would have been of "material assistance" in reaching a decision about the proposed station. It seems to me a most remarkable proposition that a Minister can come to the conclusion that representations which he has not heard would not be of any assistance to him in coming to the decision which he is about to make. Therefore, I wrote to him a third letter, and I received the reply on 10th March, which roughly repeated the same type of proposition that I have mentioned to the House.
I then put down two Questions to the Paymaster-General, and these Questions

were answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. In his Answer to the first, he suggested that I was under a misapprehension, and went on to say:
My noble Friend's inspectors take full account of possible routes to be taken by transmission lines associated with the proposed power station.
It seems to me a very remarkable position that I should be under the misapprehension that the inspectors would take into consideration full account of possible routes on which no representations had been made at all.
I would say that these inspectors have nothing on which they could make any decision, for they did not know where these power lines were to go, and if they were to take anything of that kind into consideration it was their duty, and it was the duty of the Minister, to include these considerations in the inquiry which was held towards the end of last year. So I say that if there is anybody under a misapprehension, it was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who seems to think that it is possible to decide on a proposition on which the facts are not laid before him.
The Answer to my second Question was:
The route of the proposed transmission lines from a power station at Dungeness to a sub-station at Lydd and from this sub-station to Canterbury has already been the subject of public inquiries.
That goes back to my first point—that if we can have an inquiry in the one case, why should we be denied the opportunity of making our representations before a decision is taken as to where the power station is to go? My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
My noble Friend in reaching his decision will also take full account of the probability that a further transmission line running Westwards will be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 13.]
There, again, it seems to me we are back where we started, for his noble Friend will take full account of something on which no representations have been made to him at all. I therefore feel that these Answers are couched in bureaucratic language, which certainly does not commend itself to my constituents.
I had a look at the observations which were made in the Franks Report about how these inquiries should be conducted, and there were three principles


laid down: openness, fairness and impartiality. On fairness, the Franks Report said:
Next, take fairness. If the objector were not allowed to state his case, there would be nothing to stop oppression. Thirdly, there is impartiality. How can the citizen be satisfied unless he feels that those who decide his case come to their decision with open minds?
How can it be said that an inquiry held subsequent to the events which I have outlined will be held by somebody who is coming to consider the matter with an open mind?
Further, the Franks Report says that
fairness to require the adoption of a clear procedure which enables parties to know their rights, to present their case fully and to know the case which they have to meet".
My constituents feel that they have not had the opportunity of putting forward their case, as, indeed, they have not.
This is a matter which has received publicity outside my constituency. There was a letter written by Councillor Reitlinger, the present vice-chairman of the Battle Rural District Council and published in The Times on 14th March last. The Brighton Evening Argus had a leading article on 3rd April last. The News Chronicle, on 26th March last, said this:
As he has not heard the suggestions the Minister cannot know whether they would be helpful or not. This contempt for local government is bureaucracy at its worst. It seems the Government is treating the public inquiries merely as a matter of form. … Every effort should be made to create harmony instead of a conflict of interests.
I raise this matter tonight in the hope that in some way harmony may be restored, and if there is any way in which my hon. Friend can help to do that I shall certainly be very grateful. Although it is too late to do very much to help in this case, I feel that the debate may be of some use if my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that, when there is an inquiry of a similar nature in the future, all the relevant factors shall be heard before the decision is taken. If my hon. Friend can give an undertaking that the approximate line and destination of power lines from any proposed site should be regarded in future with the formal application as something which should be considered at the inquiry, then I think that this debate will not have been in vain.
But as long as we have letters from the Minister saying that his inspectors will "no doubt" take into consideration something which they have not heard, or if the Minister writes that something which he does not know and is to be put to him later would not be of any "material assistance" to him, I do not believe that there is any possibility of progress. In coming to a decision the Minister should take every step to ensure having the whole picture presented to him. Deciding a case piecemeal is not satisfactory to the people who will be affected by that decision.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able at least to say that in future cases this principle will be laid down, and if he does that tonight that will be of help to other persons, even if it is not of much assistance to my constituents.

10.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) for raising this important matter. I shall start with one or two very brief general observations and then deal with the special point. I should like to say at once that my noble Friend and the Ministry responsible do not think that the present situation is necessarily perfect, and certainly have not the slightest desire to ride roughshod over local opinion. Anything that can be done increasingly to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done will, as always, be very sympathetically considered.
One must start in all this by realising the difficulties of the Central Electricity Generating Board. These stations must be built somewhere. Indeed, it is constituents like my hon. Friend's who are everlastingly saying "Why don't you hurry up with rural electrification?"; but they do not want to have the wires bringing over the power. If a station is in an urban area they say it is not safe. If it is in the country they say that the best agricultural land in England cannot be spared, and if it is in a wilderness like Dungeness that is the last remaining breeding ground of some strange insect, and the station must not be built there.
The Board is in an extremely difficult situation. There is only one other nuclear power station site possible in


this part of England and that is at Red-ham Mead on the Thames. That site is so small that even if a station were built there in the near future there would have to be at least one if not two other similar stations, whereas a station can be installed on this site to a capacity of about 1,500 megawatts, which is on a totally different scale. Therefore, whatever is done, whether conventional or nuclear, there will have to be more stations in the south of England. The whole basis of the grid is that it must be linked up and somewhere an east-west transmission line is necessary. It is against that background that we must consider the special problem of this case.
I should like to state briefly the facts as I have been able to discover them after careful enquiry. I do not think there is any dispute that the Generating Board carried out its statutory duties and informed the planning authorities, the County Council of Kent and the County Borough of Lydd in an application for consent on 26th June. I should like to read a phrase from that application which is material:
An additional double circuit 275,000 volts transmission line will be required to connect the load centres in the West and a route for this will he submitted to the Local Planning and Local Authority in due course.
On 9th July, in accordance with standing practice, Kent wrote to Sussex, and some time before 6th August, Sussex County Council wrote to Battle. It is perfectly true, and I do not want to overlook any of the facts, that Kent County Council did not in terms refer to the fact that the line to the west would be required but it informed Sussex, and Sussex informed Battle, that all the particulars, including a statement which referred specifically to a line to the west were available at Lydd, and that was in August four months before the inquiry began on 16th December.
I will not go into the matter of advertising, though similar information was given in national and in some local newspapers. I accept at once that it was in good faith that the Battle authority said that it knew only at the inquiry for the first time that such a line to the west would be required. I can only say, without any sense of criticising it or any other of the authorities concerned, that if one is informed that the particulars of something are available for

four months and one does not look at them or, having looked at them one does not notice the specific words to which I have referred, it is perhaps a little unfortunate.
We then come to the point where it might be asked, "That may be all true but were the observations which Battle made on the first day of the inquiry in some way prejudiced because they were not relevant or within the terms of reference of the inquiry itself?" We must draw a distinction, which was quite clearly drawn by those holding the inquiry, and they were not only an inspector of the Ministry of Power, who might be held to be to a certain extent interested, but also an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the report concerned is a joint and unanimous report.
It is perfectly true that the exact route of the line to the west was not before the inquiry and could not be gone into in detail, but the fact that there would have to be a line somewhere to the west was not only before the inquiry but the representative of Battle Council made a very good statement of the objections to it. The fact is that the necessity of a line to the west was material to the inquiry, was within the terms of reference and was, in fact, so dealt with, and not in any way cursorily.
I have here before me the evidence taken. There are 150 pages of evidence so it is not a cursory document. In the agreed report which will be published with the Minister's decision in due course, there are over 50 pages relating 15 objections which will have to be considered. I must not quote it because under the rules of order I would perhaps have to give the whole of the document at this stage. It refers the Minister specifically to the fact that he must consider the need for a western transmission line in giving or refusing his consent.
So my hon. Friend must appreciate that, far from anything being done in a hole and corner way, or anybody being deliberately prejudiced, the fact that such a line would be required was, or ought to have been, known several months before the inquiry. They did make a statement, a good statement. The two inspectors drew the special attention of my noble Friend to that statement, and of course it will be one


of the things to which he is now directing his mind.
The fact is that the Central Electricity Generating Board is in a difficult position. It knows that the North Fleet-Canterbury line is essential to reinforce the electricity supply of Canterbury. In fact, I am informed that temporary arrangements will have to be made in future for preventing actual breakdowns in Canterbury, the need for reinforcement is so great.
Having got so far, the Canterbury-Lydd line is necessary to deal with the cross-Channel cable. Having done that, we are in the position that a big station must be put somewhere. I am not prejudging my noble Friend's decision when I say that there were strong reasons given before the inquiry, which appear in the report, for putting a station near to these lines which will run under the sea near Lydd. Wherever we put a station down there it will require a connection to the west in some direction. The exact line for that will have to be settled later; all the machinery will be gone into, and the Battle Rural District Council and the Sussex County Council, and so on, will have their statutory right to argue as to whether it shall go up the Rother or the Brede Valley or elsewhere.
In deciding whether, in view of the urgent need to increase electricity supplies for the South-East, this is or is not a good site for a station, I submit that all that is required is to bear in mind that it involves an east-west line somewhere. Whether it goes along one particular route or another is not material at this stage. My noble Friend will have to ask in effect, "Are the overriding grounds for a large station in this area such that we must place a connection more or less in an east-west direction across Sussex and the western part of Kent?", but it is not material to him to know exactly in which place it should go.
It is material to point out, I think, that the primary planning authority concerned, the Sussex County Council, said in terms at the inquiry that it is content to rely on the assurance given to the residents at Rye by Mr. Wacher, the representative of the Central Electricity Generating Board—and also to Mr. Chattoe, who represented the Council for the Preservation of Rural England—that

the route would be fairly well to the north of Rye and that current would be fed into the line between Three Bridges and Brighton at some point north of the South Downs.
That is as much as the Generating Board knows or could know. It could only know exactly if it knew where the growth of electricity south-west of London would take place—which nobody could know—and where the other station or stations further down the Channel would be built. Even if it knew that, it would only push the difficulty further, because it would want to know whether it would have to go further into Hampshire.
We are in difficulty here. If we could tell everybody to stop using electricity for five years we could make a complete survey and put our stations in the best places all over England, and, conceivably, one could draw up an exact route for all the transmission systems. But that is impracticable.
Therefore, I put it to my hon. Friend that we are faced with a genuine difficulty. It is impossible for the Generating Board to know exactly where it has to put the lines, and it is impossible for my noble Friend to wait before deciding, broadly speaking, where he is to consent to stations. Otherwise the supply of electricity in southern England would come to a standstill. So we can only do our best. We can only give a general indication, and that general indication was given by the Generating Board. I very much regret if it was not drawn as clearly to the attention of everybody concerned as it was in the documents properly deposited at Lydd.
As I began by saying, my noble Friend is very willing to consider whether, as my hon. Friend said, for the future there may be any way in which we can avoid even the semblance of not doing justice to local opinion, but I think that in the light of what I have said my hon. Friend can be reassured that this is not any bureaucratic attempt to override a fair consideration of local needs. We have, however, to face it that if the country as a whole is to get a vast and increasing use of electricity, these generating stations have to be put somewhere, and wherever one puts them one has to link them up with all the other stations, and that presents a very great difficulty both


to the Generating Board and to my noble Friend.
I do not think there is any suggestion that the Generating Board did not fulfil all its statutory obligations. I can assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend will do his very best for fair judgment, in the light of the joint and unanimous report of the inspectors of the Ministry

of Power and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and if any improvement can be made or suggested by my hon. Friend, it will be very sympathetically considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.